In what context? If you brow beat someone who did not ask for your opinion, that is meddling.

If you offer your opinion when asked for or if it concerns your own personal business, then it isnt.

If you attempt to use the power of the State to impose a Moral dictum based solely on religious tenets ("a zygote is a fully formed person with a soul") not accepted by large numbers of the population...That would be meddling

First part, I didn't meddle. Glad we agree on that.

Second part, what you are saying should happen, by your definition, is meddling.

Thanks for your assessment. I thought what you said was obnoxious and meddlesome. Are you the town busybody?

You have no business repeating someone else's private drama just to make a cheap point.

You really should stop contradicting yourself.

But you wouldnt actually be able to point out a contradiction I'm betting

It was a silly, obnoxious , not to mention vague, little story to plop down in the middle of the conversation. Rubbed me the wrong way. There is nothing more to it than that.

The funniest contradiction here is your doing the very thing you claim is wrong, but of course you wouldn't recognize that because you agree with yourself. You make one claim, when shown it is not true, you continue to make that claim. All you have accomplished here is revealing you allow your emotions to control your thoughts and how you interact with opposing opinion.

Please list the claims that you think have been shown to be untrue.. I must have missed them

You've been missing a lot in this thread.

We may have to start using a different language because it seems that English is not working for Marc.

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

You say a zygote is a full blown person with a 'soul'. A person isnt necessarily a Nazi genocidal killer, or a homicidal manic, or a mass murderer if they don't accept that..

This ranks as probably one of the most stupid statements on this thread. So, per your belief, Nazis are not necessarily genocidal killers because they did not believe Jews to be fully human. The KKK should continue decorating trees with black people because they do not belive black people to be fully human. The idea of what constitues a human has been behing nearly every mass killing. Abortion is no different.

Punch, you must have been tired when you read this post. You forgot to repost the quote with bold: "A person isnt necessarily a Nazi genocidal killer, or a homicidal manic, or a mass murderer if they don't accept that.."To be honest with you, I cannot believe that ROCOR tolerates this. He would be out on his sorry hide if he were in our jurisdiction. As for Orthoabnorm, I wish I could say that I don't know why the OCA has not hit the button on the ejection seat, but I do.

You say a zygote is a full blown person with a 'soul'. A person isnt necessarily a Nazi genocidal killer, or a homicidal manic, or a mass murderer if they don't accept that..

This ranks as probably one of the most stupid statements on this thread. So, per your belief, Nazis are not necessarily genocidal killers because they did not believe Jews to be fully human. The KKK should continue decorating trees with black people because they do not belive black people to be fully human. The idea of what constitues a human has been behing nearly every mass killing. Abortion is no different.

By any measure Nazi idea's were not reasonable and tainted by hatred and predudice and easily refutable by credible Scientific methods.

On the other hand, it is perfectly reasonable for a person to not accept your religious idea's about what a soul is or when it enters the body.

The reason is, there is absolutely no evidence or is there anything observable about those contentions. They are totally and completely faith based. You accept them because your religion says so. You take those contentions on Faith and Faith alone.

Thanks for sharing your religious idea's. They don't really translate well into the secular World where people need to be persuaded of such things. If you try to enforce your religious idea's at the point of a gun, then people will resist and rightly so.

What you don't seem to get, Marc, is that we are discussing "Is abortion actually murder?" as Christians amongst Christians on a Christian discussion board. (The answer, as has been posted, is yes, btw.)

Over and over again you say that pushing one's religion on others, etc., etc., won't work, and while you may well be right (or not, perhaps--depending on the individuals in the discussion), there is no one on this board pushing their religious beliefs on anyone else on this board, that I can determine, anyway. Speaking of "push, push, push..." this really is the pot calling the kettle black! What we do, and how we do it "out in the world" amongst non-believers may well be, and probably IS a different matter altogether. The Church teaches us that abortion IS murder, and that has to be part of our frame of reference, no matter who we're talking to about it. I don't turn my Christianity on and off out of convenience or a pseudo-consideration for others who aren't Christian. But that does NOT mean that I also shove it down their throats out in the world.

"There is more than one way to skin a cat", the saying goes. So, when dealing with the abortion issue with those who are non-believers, anyone with any sense or compassion will frame their argument in a way that the other will be able to hear and understand (hopefully!). They will not at the same time, however, abandon their Christian belief, which is the very foundation upon which they approach the matter to begin with. In fact, knowing full well that there is no state religion in this country (duh!!), try not to forget that many of our laws, including those forbidding murder, are Scripturally based. So, in a sense, when we legislate against murder, we are forcing religious beliefs on those who don't have them but would murder if it weren't illegal. So, the task becomes "how do we, as Christians, convince those who are not and want to murder their unborn children, that what they are doing constitutes murder, i.e. the killing of a defenseless human being?" From what I've been able to see, there's plenty of science around that can show that a fetus (or zygote, if you prefer), is a human being. I even posted some links to that effect earlier in this thread which it seems you have either overlooked or ignored. And, speaking of meddlesome, God forbid that we "meddle" in anyone else's life and try to prevent them, believer or non-believer, from killing unborn babies!!

So, if it really bothers you to insert any kind of Christian framework into a discussion about abortion, I found this which may or may not interest you:

Quote

“As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even-this was seriously maintained-a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped. Of the considerations that have stopped it, one is the fascinating and moving view provided by the sonogram, and another is the survival of ‘premature’ babies of feather-like weight, who have achieved ‘viability’ outside the womb. … The words ‘unborn child,’ even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.”-Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great (pp. 220-21)http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/28/confessions-of-a-pro-life-atheist-why-i-fight-abortion/

Draw your own conclusions.

You are not correct. We have been discussing if Murder is a proper way to view abortion AND the implications of doing so in society.

The definition breaks down when you get to the penalty, Many of you have participated in that end of the conversation so the topic is clearly broader than you suggest. Your suggestion is probably based on your weak ability to debate the issue so you have to pretend the question is being violated somehow. That is a false assertion.

Let's review shall we?

The definition of abortion as murder breaks down when you take it to it's logical conclusion which would be the jailing or execution of Women who have abortions.

That is squarely on topic..

The reason it is unthinkable to punish abortion as murder is that it is not at all clear that in the early stages a human life is being taken.

Good people..reasonable people, can disagree on that point.

I realize the teachings of your religion say that even the newest zygote is a full blown person with a "soul".

That is a religious doctrine... Thanks for sharing but to threaten people with jail or execution based on a supernatural religious formulation is a non starter here in the USA..

I hope that clears things up.

Pretty much the response I was expecting.

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

In what context? If you brow beat someone who did not ask for your opinion, that is meddling.

If you offer your opinion when asked for or if it concerns your own personal business, then it isnt.

If you attempt to use the power of the State to impose a Moral dictum based solely on religious tenets ("a zygote is a fully formed person with a soul") not accepted by large numbers of the population...That would be meddling

First part, I didn't meddle. Glad we agree on that.

Second part, what you are saying should happen, by your definition, is meddling.

Thanks for your assessment. I thought what you said was obnoxious and meddlesome. Are you the town busybody?

You have no business repeating someone else's private drama just to make a cheap point.

You really should stop contradicting yourself.

But you wouldnt actually be able to point out a contradiction I'm betting

It was a silly, obnoxious , not to mention vague, little story to plop down in the middle of the conversation. Rubbed me the wrong way. There is nothing more to it than that.

The funniest contradiction here is your doing the very thing you claim is wrong, but of course you wouldn't recognize that because you agree with yourself. You make one claim, when shown it is not true, you continue to make that claim. All you have accomplished here is revealing you allow your emotions to control your thoughts and how you interact with opposing opinion.

Please list the claims that you think have been shown to be untrue.. I must have missed them

You've been missing a lot in this thread.

No list ?

That's what I thought.

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

You say a zygote is a full blown person with a 'soul'. A person isnt necessarily a Nazi genocidal killer, or a homicidal manic, or a mass murderer if they don't accept that..

This ranks as probably one of the most stupid statements on this thread. So, per your belief, Nazis are not necessarily genocidal killers because they did not believe Jews to be fully human. The KKK should continue decorating trees with black people because they do not belive black people to be fully human. The idea of what constitues a human has been behing nearly every mass killing. Abortion is no different.

By any measure Nazi idea's were not reasonable and tainted by hatred and predudice and easily refutable by credible Scientific methods.

On the other hand, it is perfectly reasonable for a person to not accept your religious idea's about what a soul is or when it enters the body.

The reason is, there is absolutely no evidence or is there anything observable about those contentions. They are totally and completely faith based. You accept them because your religion says so. You take those contentions on Faith and Faith alone.

Thanks for sharing your religious idea's. They don't really translate well into the secular World where people need to be persuaded of such things. If you try to enforce your religious idea's at the point of a gun, then people will resist and rightly so.

What you don't seem to get, Marc, is that we are discussing "Is abortion actually murder?" as Christians amongst Christians on a Christian discussion board. (The answer, as has been posted, is yes, btw.)

Over and over again you say that pushing one's religion on others, etc., etc., won't work, and while you may well be right (or not, perhaps--depending on the individuals in the discussion), there is no one on this board pushing their religious beliefs on anyone else on this board, that I can determine, anyway. Speaking of "push, push, push..." this really is the pot calling the kettle black! What we do, and how we do it "out in the world" amongst non-believers may well be, and probably IS a different matter altogether. The Church teaches us that abortion IS murder, and that has to be part of our frame of reference, no matter who we're talking to about it. I don't turn my Christianity on and off out of convenience or a pseudo-consideration for others who aren't Christian. But that does NOT mean that I also shove it down their throats out in the world.

"There is more than one way to skin a cat", the saying goes. So, when dealing with the abortion issue with those who are non-believers, anyone with any sense or compassion will frame their argument in a way that the other will be able to hear and understand (hopefully!). They will not at the same time, however, abandon their Christian belief, which is the very foundation upon which they approach the matter to begin with. In fact, knowing full well that there is no state religion in this country (duh!!), try not to forget that many of our laws, including those forbidding murder, are Scripturally based. So, in a sense, when we legislate against murder, we are forcing religious beliefs on those who don't have them but would murder if it weren't illegal. So, the task becomes "how do we, as Christians, convince those who are not and want to murder their unborn children, that what they are doing constitutes murder, i.e. the killing of a defenseless human being?" From what I've been able to see, there's plenty of science around that can show that a fetus (or zygote, if you prefer), is a human being. I even posted some links to that effect earlier in this thread which it seems you have either overlooked or ignored. And, speaking of meddlesome, God forbid that we "meddle" in anyone else's life and try to prevent them, believer or non-believer, from killing unborn babies!!

So, if it really bothers you to insert any kind of Christian framework into a discussion about abortion, I found this which may or may not interest you:

Quote

“As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even-this was seriously maintained-a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped. Of the considerations that have stopped it, one is the fascinating and moving view provided by the sonogram, and another is the survival of ‘premature’ babies of feather-like weight, who have achieved ‘viability’ outside the womb. … The words ‘unborn child,’ even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.”-Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great (pp. 220-21)http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/28/confessions-of-a-pro-life-atheist-why-i-fight-abortion/

Draw your own conclusions.

You are not correct. We have been discussing if Murder is a proper way to view abortion AND the implications of doing so in society.

The definition breaks down when you get to the penalty, Many of you have participated in that end of the conversation so the topic is clearly broader than you suggest. Your suggestion is probably based on your weak ability to debate the issue so you have to pretend the question is being violated somehow. That is a false assertion.

Let's review shall we?

The definition of abortion as murder breaks down when you take it to it's logical conclusion which would be the jailing or execution of Women who have abortions.

That is squarely on topic..

The reason it is unthinkable to punish abortion as murder is that it is not at all clear that in the early stages a human life is being taken.

Good people..reasonable people, can disagree on that point.

I realize the teachings of your religion say that even the newest zygote is a full blown person with a "soul".

That is a religious doctrine... Thanks for sharing but to threaten people with jail or execution based on a supernatural religious formulation is a non starter here in the USA..

I hope that clears things up.

Pretty much the response I was expecting.

All I have done is to discuss the implications of calling people murders.. Sorry if that is beyond your reach or interest but it is well within the topic.

« Last Edit: April 03, 2013, 11:57:58 AM by Marc1152 »

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

You say a zygote is a full blown person with a 'soul'. A person isnt necessarily a Nazi genocidal killer, or a homicidal manic, or a mass murderer if they don't accept that..

This ranks as probably one of the most stupid statements on this thread. So, per your belief, Nazis are not necessarily genocidal killers because they did not believe Jews to be fully human. The KKK should continue decorating trees with black people because they do not belive black people to be fully human. The idea of what constitues a human has been behing nearly every mass killing. Abortion is no different.

Punch, you must have been tired when you read this post. You forgot to repost the quote with bold: "A person isnt necessarily a Nazi genocidal killer, or a homicidal manic, or a mass murderer if they don't accept that.."To be honest with you, I cannot believe that ROCOR tolerates this. He would be out on his sorry hide if he were in our jurisdiction. As for Orthoabnorm, I wish I could say that I don't know why the OCA has not hit the button on the ejection seat, but I do.

So your jurisdiction believes in judgmental finger pointing even to the extent that it may cause an increase in the rate of abortion.

Wow... Hard to believe.

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

I think we're confusing two things. One thing is the question of whether abortion constitutes murder. The answer is surely yes. There's really no way to argue from within Orthodoxy that abortion is not murder in every instance, except when done to protect the life the mother, in which case it's "justifiable homicide", in the same way it's justifiable to kill someone who is threatening your life. Even then, we don't say the killing is good, only that it's justifiable.

The other question is whether those who disagree with our views on abortion are culpable if they commit it. I think what Marc is saying is that being a murderer requires the murderer having knowledge of the moral gravity of his actions. Therefore, if you don't believe that killing an unborn child is murder, you are not a murderer, even if from the Orthodox point of view the act itself is murder.

I think that line of reasoning is false, since it introduces moral relativism by the backdoor. The objective moral gravity of a sin is surely not dependent on the beliefs of the sinner. Therefore, I think we can say that, objectively speaking, one who voluntarily kills an unborn child is a murderer.

What we can argue over is how morally culpable the murderer is. Ignorance of the moral gravity of an action CAN be an exculpating factor. I say "can", not "must", because the ignorance itself may be voluntary. We have to consider the possibility that the murderer could have chosen to question his beliefs about abortion, in which case he may have revised them and come to the knowledge that it is indeed a form of murder.

These are obviously difficult questions to which probably only God knows the answer. That is presumably one reason we don't apply laws retroactively. If the law were up to us, I don't think our faith permits any other option than to criminalize abortion as for murder. However, we should not apply the law retroactively to those who committed abortion before, since we should presume they acted in ignorance.

I think we're confusing two things. One thing is the question of whether abortion constitutes murder. The answer is surely yes. There's really no way to argue from within Orthodoxy that abortion is not murder in every instance, except when done to protect the life the mother, in which case it's "justifiable homicide", in the same way it's justifiable to kill someone who is threatening your life. Even then, we don't say the killing is good, only that it's justifiable.

The other question is whether those who disagree with our views on abortion are culpable if they commit it. I think what Marc is saying is that being a murderer requires the murderer having knowledge of the moral gravity of his actions. Therefore, if you don't believe that killing an unborn child is murder, you are not a murderer, even if from the Orthodox point of view the act itself is murder.

I think that line of reasoning is false, since it introduces moral relativism by the backdoor. The objective moral gravity of a sin is surely not dependent on the beliefs of the sinner. Therefore, I think we can say that, objectively speaking, one who voluntarily kills an unborn child is a murderer.

What we can argue over is how morally culpable the murderer is. Ignorance of the moral gravity of an action CAN be an exculpating factor. I say "can", not "must", because the ignorance itself may be voluntary. We have to consider the possibility that the murderer could have chosen to question his beliefs about abortion, in which case he may have revised them and come to the knowledge that it is indeed a form of murder.

These are obviously difficult questions to which probably only God knows the answer. That is presumably one reason we don't apply laws retroactively. If the law were up to us, I don't think our faith permits any other option than to criminalize abortion as for murder. However, we should not apply the law retroactively to those who committed abortion before, since we should presume they acted in ignorance.

Not precisely my position.

Yes, it is a mitigating circumstance if someone intends to commit a murder or really believes that no human life is being taken. However, a life was still taken so even mitigated, there is still a grave sin.

My primary concern is not really that. There is nothing that compels a Christian to come into the public square and boorishly judge people and threaten them with harm ( jail terms etc.). You can ceratianly justify yourself by pointing out that your Chruch considers Abortion to be a murder. But nothing at all compels anyone from playing that card , except maybe their own pride in being extra Militant.

This tactic is counter productive. It is perfectly reasonable that an ordinarily prudent person can draw the conclusion that an early stage abortion is not the taking of a life. If they are ignorant of something, then they are ignorant of the teachings of Christianity. But objectively speaking, there is no way to know for certain that the "soul" enters the body at conception. That is a religious belief. I suggest treading more lightly if your conclusions are drawn from your faith and not from knowable facts that everyone can plainly see is the case.

OKAY ?

I also suggest waking up the political context. No one is sending Women to jail. Not before during or after anything. There is no possibility of Roe v Wade being overturned. None... Zero... not in any of our lifetimes.

Therefore, the best way to reduce abortion is to put the accusatory finger pointing on the shelf and share your religious understanding of the nature of life and when it may begin and get out of the public/policy square which is the exact wrong place to reach people or have this conversation.......IMHO

« Last Edit: April 03, 2013, 02:31:00 PM by Marc1152 »

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

I think we're confusing two things. One thing is the question of whether abortion constitutes murder. The answer is surely yes. There's really no way to argue from within Orthodoxy that abortion is not murder in every instance, except when done to protect the life the mother, in which case it's "justifiable homicide", in the same way it's justifiable to kill someone who is threatening your life. Even then, we don't say the killing is good, only that it's justifiable.

The other question is whether those who disagree with our views on abortion are culpable if they commit it. I think what Marc is saying is that being a murderer requires the murderer having knowledge of the moral gravity of his actions. Therefore, if you don't believe that killing an unborn child is murder, you are not a murderer, even if from the Orthodox point of view the act itself is murder.

I think that line of reasoning is false, since it introduces moral relativism by the backdoor. The objective moral gravity of a sin is surely not dependent on the beliefs of the sinner. Therefore, I think we can say that, objectively speaking, one who voluntarily kills an unborn child is a murderer.

What we can argue over is how morally culpable the murderer is. Ignorance of the moral gravity of an action CAN be an exculpating factor. I say "can", not "must", because the ignorance itself may be voluntary. We have to consider the possibility that the murderer could have chosen to question his beliefs about abortion, in which case he may have revised them and come to the knowledge that it is indeed a form of murder.

These are obviously difficult questions to which probably only God knows the answer. That is presumably one reason we don't apply laws retroactively. If the law were up to us, I don't think our faith permits any other option than to criminalize abortion as for murder. However, we should not apply the law retroactively to those who committed abortion before, since we should presume they acted in ignorance.

Good points, Jonathan.

It seems to me, too, that Marc has overlooked the fact, already pointed out somewhere above in all the verbiage, that not all murderers are treated identically, that there are in most if not all states different "degrees" of homicide, and that not all people who are convicted of a particular type or degree of homicide get exactly the same punishment. Criminalizing abortion as murder can also include establishing suitable punishments for it for *both* the mother and the abortionist, perhaps even with a greater punishment for the abortionist. So, no, the definition of abortion as murder does NOT break down, as Marc says, "...when you take it to it's logical conclusion which would be the jailing or execution of Women who have abortions.", especially if those are the punishments that society, through legislation (if it EVER comes to that), has decreed as being appropriate for the crime. The "logical conclusion" in any society governed by law, whether said law is based on Christian principles or not, is that violating the law has consequences and sometimes those consequences are dire, as dire as the crime committed. What's the saying, "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime"? Well, IF, and it's a huge if, we ever convince legislators to criminalize abortion that saying would apply as much to that as to any other crime.

In the meantime, however, until such a day arrives, we will have to use other means at our disposal (which may or may not include religious arguments, depending on who we're talking to) to educate young people about sexual moderation and abstinence and to try to dissuade women from having abortions, and make resources available such as this, for example http://tendercare.org/ on a much greater scale, so that women don't think that abortion is the only viable option for them in an "unwanted" pregnancy.

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

You say a zygote is a full blown person with a 'soul'. A person isnt necessarily a Nazi genocidal killer, or a homicidal manic, or a mass murderer if they don't accept that..

This ranks as probably one of the most stupid statements on this thread. So, per your belief, Nazis are not necessarily genocidal killers because they did not believe Jews to be fully human. The KKK should continue decorating trees with black people because they do not belive black people to be fully human. The idea of what constitues a human has been behing nearly every mass killing. Abortion is no different.

Punch, you must have been tired when you read this post. You forgot to repost the quote with bold: "A person isnt necessarily a Nazi genocidal killer, or a homicidal manic, or a mass murderer if they don't accept that.."To be honest with you, I cannot believe that ROCOR tolerates this. He would be out on his sorry hide if he were in our jurisdiction. As for Orthoabnorm, I wish I could say that I don't know why the OCA has not hit the button on the ejection seat, but I do.

So your jurisdiction believes in judgmental finger pointing even to the extent that it may cause an increase in the rate of abortion.

Wow... Hard to believe.

"I accuse you of judgmental finger pointing" is the theme song of brigands, unrepentant sinners and heretics.

I think we're confusing two things. One thing is the question of whether abortion constitutes murder. The answer is surely yes. There's really no way to argue from within Orthodoxy that abortion is not murder in every instance, except when done to protect the life the mother, in which case it's "justifiable homicide", in the same way it's justifiable to kill someone who is threatening your life. Even then, we don't say the killing is good, only that it's justifiable.

The other question is whether those who disagree with our views on abortion are culpable if they commit it. I think what Marc is saying is that being a murderer requires the murderer having knowledge of the moral gravity of his actions. Therefore, if you don't believe that killing an unborn child is murder, you are not a murderer, even if from the Orthodox point of view the act itself is murder.

I think that line of reasoning is false, since it introduces moral relativism by the backdoor. The objective moral gravity of a sin is surely not dependent on the beliefs of the sinner. Therefore, I think we can say that, objectively speaking, one who voluntarily kills an unborn child is a murderer.

What we can argue over is how morally culpable the murderer is. Ignorance of the moral gravity of an action CAN be an exculpating factor. I say "can", not "must", because the ignorance itself may be voluntary. We have to consider the possibility that the murderer could have chosen to question his beliefs about abortion, in which case he may have revised them and come to the knowledge that it is indeed a form of murder.

These are obviously difficult questions to which probably only God knows the answer. That is presumably one reason we don't apply laws retroactively. If the law were up to us, I don't think our faith permits any other option than to criminalize abortion as for murder. However, we should not apply the law retroactively to those who committed abortion before, since we should presume they acted in ignorance.

Not precisely my position.

Yes, it is a mitigating circumstance if someone intends to commit a murder or really believes that no human life is being taken. However, a life was still taken so even mitigated, there is still a grave sin.

My primary concern is not really that. There is nothing that compels a Christian to come into the public square and boorishly judge people and threaten them with harm ( jail terms etc.). You can ceratianly justify yourself by pointing out that your Chruch considers Abortion to be a murder. But nothing at all compels anyone from playing that card , except maybe their own pride in being extra Militant.

This tactic is counter productive. It is perfectly reasonable that an ordinarily prudent person can draw the conclusion that an early stage abortion is not the taking of a life. If they are ignorant of something, then they are ignorant of the teachings of Christianity. But objectively speaking, there is no way to know for certain that the "soul" enters the body at conception. That is a religious belief. I suggest treading more lightly if your conclusions are drawn from your faith and not from knowable facts that everyone can plainly see is the case.

OKAY ?

I also suggest waking up the political context. No one is sending Women to jail. Not before during or after anything. There is no possibility of Roe v Wade being overturned. None... Zero... not in any of our lifetimes.

Therefore, the best way to reduce abortion is to put the accusatory finger pointing on the shelf and share your religious understanding of the nature of life and when it may begin and get out of the public/policy square which is the exact wrong place to reach people or have this conversation.......IMHO

It occurs to me that your whole premise is based on the misguided notion that any and every Christian who goes out into the public square, or wherever, to try to convince others not to kill unborn babies does so, necessarily, in a boorish, judgmental, accusatory, threatening manner. I may not be too bright according to you, or as skilled a debater as you, but I do have eyes and at least half a brain and only very, very rarely have I seen such behavior, and it has always turned me off.

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

I think we're confusing two things. One thing is the question of whether abortion constitutes murder. The answer is surely yes. There's really no way to argue from within Orthodoxy that abortion is not murder in every instance, except when done to protect the life the mother, in which case it's "justifiable homicide", in the same way it's justifiable to kill someone who is threatening your life. Even then, we don't say the killing is good, only that it's justifiable.

The other question is whether those who disagree with our views on abortion are culpable if they commit it. I think what Marc is saying is that being a murderer requires the murderer having knowledge of the moral gravity of his actions. Therefore, if you don't believe that killing an unborn child is murder, you are not a murderer, even if from the Orthodox point of view the act itself is murder.

I think that line of reasoning is false, since it introduces moral relativism by the backdoor. The objective moral gravity of a sin is surely not dependent on the beliefs of the sinner. Therefore, I think we can say that, objectively speaking, one who voluntarily kills an unborn child is a murderer.

What we can argue over is how morally culpable the murderer is. Ignorance of the moral gravity of an action CAN be an exculpating factor. I say "can", not "must", because the ignorance itself may be voluntary. We have to consider the possibility that the murderer could have chosen to question his beliefs about abortion, in which case he may have revised them and come to the knowledge that it is indeed a form of murder.

These are obviously difficult questions to which probably only God knows the answer. That is presumably one reason we don't apply laws retroactively. If the law were up to us, I don't think our faith permits any other option than to criminalize abortion as for murder. However, we should not apply the law retroactively to those who committed abortion before, since we should presume they acted in ignorance.

Good points, Jonathan.

It seems to me, too, that Marc has overlooked the fact, already pointed out somewhere above in all the verbiage, that not all murderers are treated identically, that there are in most if not all states different "degrees" of homicide, and that not all people who are convicted of a particular type or degree of homicide get exactly the same punishment. Criminalizing abortion as murder can also include establishing suitable punishments for it for *both* the mother and the abortionist, perhaps even with a greater punishment for the abortionist. So, no, the definition of abortion as murder does NOT break down, as Marc says, "...when you take it to it's logical conclusion which would be the jailing or execution of Women who have abortions.", especially if those are the punishments that society, through legislation (if it EVER comes to that), has decreed as being appropriate for the crime. The "logical conclusion" in any society governed by law, whether said law is based on Christian principles or not, is that violating the law has consequences and sometimes those consequences are dire, as dire as the crime committed. What's the saying, "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime"? Well, IF, and it's a huge if, we ever convince legislators to criminalize abortion that saying would apply as much to that as to any other crime.

In the meantime, however, until such a day arrives, we will have to use other means at our disposal (which may or may not include religious arguments, depending on who we're talking to) to educate young people about sexual moderation and abstinence and to try to dissuade women from having abortions, and make resources available such as this, for example http://tendercare.org/ on a much greater scale, so that women don't think that abortion is the only viable option for them in an "unwanted" pregnancy.

If you read back you will find several people who say "Murder is Murder is Murder".. When I then ask if they will jail or even exicute Women who have abortions, they have repeatedly said yes.

I am glad you will consider lighter sentences. Keep in mind you will never have such power and neither will they, so keeping the actual power dynamic in mind, I suggest persuasion rather than threats or porjecting some sort of fantisy policial situation that is not really ever going to happen.

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

I think we're confusing two things. One thing is the question of whether abortion constitutes murder. The answer is surely yes. There's really no way to argue from within Orthodoxy that abortion is not murder in every instance, except when done to protect the life the mother, in which case it's "justifiable homicide", in the same way it's justifiable to kill someone who is threatening your life. Even then, we don't say the killing is good, only that it's justifiable.

The other question is whether those who disagree with our views on abortion are culpable if they commit it. I think what Marc is saying is that being a murderer requires the murderer having knowledge of the moral gravity of his actions. Therefore, if you don't believe that killing an unborn child is murder, you are not a murderer, even if from the Orthodox point of view the act itself is murder.

I think that line of reasoning is false, since it introduces moral relativism by the backdoor. The objective moral gravity of a sin is surely not dependent on the beliefs of the sinner. Therefore, I think we can say that, objectively speaking, one who voluntarily kills an unborn child is a murderer.

What we can argue over is how morally culpable the murderer is. Ignorance of the moral gravity of an action CAN be an exculpating factor. I say "can", not "must", because the ignorance itself may be voluntary. We have to consider the possibility that the murderer could have chosen to question his beliefs about abortion, in which case he may have revised them and come to the knowledge that it is indeed a form of murder.

These are obviously difficult questions to which probably only God knows the answer. That is presumably one reason we don't apply laws retroactively. If the law were up to us, I don't think our faith permits any other option than to criminalize abortion as for murder. However, we should not apply the law retroactively to those who committed abortion before, since we should presume they acted in ignorance.

Not precisely my position.

Yes, it is a mitigating circumstance if someone intends to commit a murder or really believes that no human life is being taken. However, a life was still taken so even mitigated, there is still a grave sin.

My primary concern is not really that. There is nothing that compels a Christian to come into the public square and boorishly judge people and threaten them with harm ( jail terms etc.). You can ceratianly justify yourself by pointing out that your Chruch considers Abortion to be a murder. But nothing at all compels anyone from playing that card , except maybe their own pride in being extra Militant.

This tactic is counter productive. It is perfectly reasonable that an ordinarily prudent person can draw the conclusion that an early stage abortion is not the taking of a life. If they are ignorant of something, then they are ignorant of the teachings of Christianity. But objectively speaking, there is no way to know for certain that the "soul" enters the body at conception. That is a religious belief. I suggest treading more lightly if your conclusions are drawn from your faith and not from knowable facts that everyone can plainly see is the case.

OKAY ?

I also suggest waking up the political context. No one is sending Women to jail. Not before during or after anything. There is no possibility of Roe v Wade being overturned. None... Zero... not in any of our lifetimes.

Therefore, the best way to reduce abortion is to put the accusatory finger pointing on the shelf and share your religious understanding of the nature of life and when it may begin and get out of the public/policy square which is the exact wrong place to reach people or have this conversation.......IMHO

It occurs to me that your whole premise is based on the misguided notion that any and every Christian who goes out into the public square, or wherever, to try to convince others not to kill unborn babies does so, necessarily, in a boorish, judgmental, accusatory, threatening manner. I may not be too bright according to you, or as skilled a debater as you, but I do have eyes and at least half a brain and only very, very rarely have I seen such behavior, and it has always turned me off.

I think we're confusing two things. One thing is the question of whether abortion constitutes murder. The answer is surely yes. There's really no way to argue from within Orthodoxy that abortion is not murder in every instance, except when done to protect the life the mother, in which case it's "justifiable homicide", in the same way it's justifiable to kill someone who is threatening your life. Even then, we don't say the killing is good, only that it's justifiable.

The other question is whether those who disagree with our views on abortion are culpable if they commit it. I think what Marc is saying is that being a murderer requires the murderer having knowledge of the moral gravity of his actions. Therefore, if you don't believe that killing an unborn child is murder, you are not a murderer, even if from the Orthodox point of view the act itself is murder.

I think that line of reasoning is false, since it introduces moral relativism by the backdoor. The objective moral gravity of a sin is surely not dependent on the beliefs of the sinner. Therefore, I think we can say that, objectively speaking, one who voluntarily kills an unborn child is a murderer.

What we can argue over is how morally culpable the murderer is. Ignorance of the moral gravity of an action CAN be an exculpating factor. I say "can", not "must", because the ignorance itself may be voluntary. We have to consider the possibility that the murderer could have chosen to question his beliefs about abortion, in which case he may have revised them and come to the knowledge that it is indeed a form of murder.

These are obviously difficult questions to which probably only God knows the answer. That is presumably one reason we don't apply laws retroactively. If the law were up to us, I don't think our faith permits any other option than to criminalize abortion as for murder. However, we should not apply the law retroactively to those who committed abortion before, since we should presume they acted in ignorance.

Good points, Jonathan.

It seems to me, too, that Marc has overlooked the fact, already pointed out somewhere above in all the verbiage, that not all murderers are treated identically, that there are in most if not all states different "degrees" of homicide, and that not all people who are convicted of a particular type or degree of homicide get exactly the same punishment. Criminalizing abortion as murder can also include establishing suitable punishments for it for *both* the mother and the abortionist, perhaps even with a greater punishment for the abortionist. So, no, the definition of abortion as murder does NOT break down, as Marc says, "...when you take it to it's logical conclusion which would be the jailing or execution of Women who have abortions.", especially if those are the punishments that society, through legislation (if it EVER comes to that), has decreed as being appropriate for the crime. The "logical conclusion" in any society governed by law, whether said law is based on Christian principles or not, is that violating the law has consequences and sometimes those consequences are dire, as dire as the crime committed. What's the saying, "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime"? Well, IF, and it's a huge if, we ever convince legislators to criminalize abortion that saying would apply as much to that as to any other crime.

In the meantime, however, until such a day arrives, we will have to use other means at our disposal (which may or may not include religious arguments, depending on who we're talking to) to educate young people about sexual moderation and abstinence and to try to dissuade women from having abortions, and make resources available such as this, for example http://tendercare.org/ on a much greater scale, so that women don't think that abortion is the only viable option for them in an "unwanted" pregnancy.

If you read back you will find several people who say "Murder is Murder is Murder".. When I then ask if they will jail or even exicute Women who have abortions, they have repeatedly said yes.

I am glad you will consider lighter sentences. Keep in mind you will never have such power and neither will they, so keeping the actual power dynamic in mind, I suggest persuasion rather than threats or porjecting some sort of fantisy policial situation that is not really ever going to happen.

Well, murder IS murder. What else would you call it?? It ain't shoplifting and shouldn't be punished as such. I would not necessarily be against imposition of the death penalty, should society decree that, on the person who performs the abortion.

Now, whether or not our society has the collective guts to get to the point of calling abortion murder and imposing appropriate punishment for it, well...I don't expect it, certainly not in what's left of my lifetime, but I won't stop praying for it, either.

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

I think we're confusing two things. One thing is the question of whether abortion constitutes murder. The answer is surely yes. There's really no way to argue from within Orthodoxy that abortion is not murder in every instance, except when done to protect the life the mother, in which case it's "justifiable homicide", in the same way it's justifiable to kill someone who is threatening your life. Even then, we don't say the killing is good, only that it's justifiable.

The other question is whether those who disagree with our views on abortion are culpable if they commit it. I think what Marc is saying is that being a murderer requires the murderer having knowledge of the moral gravity of his actions. Therefore, if you don't believe that killing an unborn child is murder, you are not a murderer, even if from the Orthodox point of view the act itself is murder.

I think that line of reasoning is false, since it introduces moral relativism by the backdoor. The objective moral gravity of a sin is surely not dependent on the beliefs of the sinner. Therefore, I think we can say that, objectively speaking, one who voluntarily kills an unborn child is a murderer.

What we can argue over is how morally culpable the murderer is. Ignorance of the moral gravity of an action CAN be an exculpating factor. I say "can", not "must", because the ignorance itself may be voluntary. We have to consider the possibility that the murderer could have chosen to question his beliefs about abortion, in which case he may have revised them and come to the knowledge that it is indeed a form of murder.

These are obviously difficult questions to which probably only God knows the answer. That is presumably one reason we don't apply laws retroactively. If the law were up to us, I don't think our faith permits any other option than to criminalize abortion as for murder. However, we should not apply the law retroactively to those who committed abortion before, since we should presume they acted in ignorance.

Not precisely my position.

Yes, it is a mitigating circumstance if someone intends to commit a murder or really believes that no human life is being taken. However, a life was still taken so even mitigated, there is still a grave sin.

My primary concern is not really that. There is nothing that compels a Christian to come into the public square and boorishly judge people and threaten them with harm ( jail terms etc.). You can ceratianly justify yourself by pointing out that your Chruch considers Abortion to be a murder. But nothing at all compels anyone from playing that card , except maybe their own pride in being extra Militant.

This tactic is counter productive. It is perfectly reasonable that an ordinarily prudent person can draw the conclusion that an early stage abortion is not the taking of a life. If they are ignorant of something, then they are ignorant of the teachings of Christianity. But objectively speaking, there is no way to know for certain that the "soul" enters the body at conception. That is a religious belief. I suggest treading more lightly if your conclusions are drawn from your faith and not from knowable facts that everyone can plainly see is the case.

OKAY ?

I also suggest waking up the political context. No one is sending Women to jail. Not before during or after anything. There is no possibility of Roe v Wade being overturned. None... Zero... not in any of our lifetimes.

Therefore, the best way to reduce abortion is to put the accusatory finger pointing on the shelf and share your religious understanding of the nature of life and when it may begin and get out of the public/policy square which is the exact wrong place to reach people or have this conversation.......IMHO

It occurs to me that your whole premise is based on the misguided notion that any and every Christian who goes out into the public square, or wherever, to try to convince others not to kill unborn babies does so, necessarily, in a boorish, judgmental, accusatory, threatening manner. I may not be too bright according to you, or as skilled a debater as you, but I do have eyes and at least half a brain and only very, very rarely have I seen such behavior, and it has always turned me off.

1. I hope you are not excluding yourself in that judgment. If you also want to include me, then go right ahead.

2. This forum is NOT the public square, as I've pointed out several times already, and we are not discussing HERE the issues in necessarily the same manner as we would out in the public square. What will it take for you to get that??

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

I think we're confusing two things. One thing is the question of whether abortion constitutes murder. The answer is surely yes. There's really no way to argue from within Orthodoxy that abortion is not murder in every instance, except when done to protect the life the mother, in which case it's "justifiable homicide", in the same way it's justifiable to kill someone who is threatening your life. Even then, we don't say the killing is good, only that it's justifiable.

The other question is whether those who disagree with our views on abortion are culpable if they commit it. I think what Marc is saying is that being a murderer requires the murderer having knowledge of the moral gravity of his actions. Therefore, if you don't believe that killing an unborn child is murder, you are not a murderer, even if from the Orthodox point of view the act itself is murder.

I think that line of reasoning is false, since it introduces moral relativism by the backdoor. The objective moral gravity of a sin is surely not dependent on the beliefs of the sinner. Therefore, I think we can say that, objectively speaking, one who voluntarily kills an unborn child is a murderer.

What we can argue over is how morally culpable the murderer is. Ignorance of the moral gravity of an action CAN be an exculpating factor. I say "can", not "must", because the ignorance itself may be voluntary. We have to consider the possibility that the murderer could have chosen to question his beliefs about abortion, in which case he may have revised them and come to the knowledge that it is indeed a form of murder.

These are obviously difficult questions to which probably only God knows the answer. That is presumably one reason we don't apply laws retroactively. If the law were up to us, I don't think our faith permits any other option than to criminalize abortion as for murder. However, we should not apply the law retroactively to those who committed abortion before, since we should presume they acted in ignorance.

Not precisely my position.

Yes, it is a mitigating circumstance if someone intends to commit a murder or really believes that no human life is being taken. However, a life was still taken so even mitigated, there is still a grave sin.

My primary concern is not really that. There is nothing that compels a Christian to come into the public square and boorishly judge people and threaten them with harm ( jail terms etc.). You can ceratianly justify yourself by pointing out that your Chruch considers Abortion to be a murder. But nothing at all compels anyone from playing that card , except maybe their own pride in being extra Militant.

This tactic is counter productive. It is perfectly reasonable that an ordinarily prudent person can draw the conclusion that an early stage abortion is not the taking of a life. If they are ignorant of something, then they are ignorant of the teachings of Christianity. But objectively speaking, there is no way to know for certain that the "soul" enters the body at conception. That is a religious belief. I suggest treading more lightly if your conclusions are drawn from your faith and not from knowable facts that everyone can plainly see is the case.

OKAY ?

I also suggest waking up the political context. No one is sending Women to jail. Not before during or after anything. There is no possibility of Roe v Wade being overturned. None... Zero... not in any of our lifetimes.

Therefore, the best way to reduce abortion is to put the accusatory finger pointing on the shelf and share your religious understanding of the nature of life and when it may begin and get out of the public/policy square which is the exact wrong place to reach people or have this conversation.......IMHO

It occurs to me that your whole premise is based on the misguided notion that any and every Christian who goes out into the public square, or wherever, to try to convince others not to kill unborn babies does so, necessarily, in a boorish, judgmental, accusatory, threatening manner. I may not be too bright according to you, or as skilled a debater as you, but I do have eyes and at least half a brain and only very, very rarely have I seen such behavior, and it has always turned me off.

I think we're confusing two things. One thing is the question of whether abortion constitutes murder. The answer is surely yes. There's really no way to argue from within Orthodoxy that abortion is not murder in every instance, except when done to protect the life the mother, in which case it's "justifiable homicide", in the same way it's justifiable to kill someone who is threatening your life. Even then, we don't say the killing is good, only that it's justifiable.

The other question is whether those who disagree with our views on abortion are culpable if they commit it. I think what Marc is saying is that being a murderer requires the murderer having knowledge of the moral gravity of his actions. Therefore, if you don't believe that killing an unborn child is murder, you are not a murderer, even if from the Orthodox point of view the act itself is murder.

I think that line of reasoning is false, since it introduces moral relativism by the backdoor. The objective moral gravity of a sin is surely not dependent on the beliefs of the sinner. Therefore, I think we can say that, objectively speaking, one who voluntarily kills an unborn child is a murderer.

What we can argue over is how morally culpable the murderer is. Ignorance of the moral gravity of an action CAN be an exculpating factor. I say "can", not "must", because the ignorance itself may be voluntary. We have to consider the possibility that the murderer could have chosen to question his beliefs about abortion, in which case he may have revised them and come to the knowledge that it is indeed a form of murder.

These are obviously difficult questions to which probably only God knows the answer. That is presumably one reason we don't apply laws retroactively. If the law were up to us, I don't think our faith permits any other option than to criminalize abortion as for murder. However, we should not apply the law retroactively to those who committed abortion before, since we should presume they acted in ignorance.

Good points, Jonathan.

It seems to me, too, that Marc has overlooked the fact, already pointed out somewhere above in all the verbiage, that not all murderers are treated identically, that there are in most if not all states different "degrees" of homicide, and that not all people who are convicted of a particular type or degree of homicide get exactly the same punishment. Criminalizing abortion as murder can also include establishing suitable punishments for it for *both* the mother and the abortionist, perhaps even with a greater punishment for the abortionist. So, no, the definition of abortion as murder does NOT break down, as Marc says, "...when you take it to it's logical conclusion which would be the jailing or execution of Women who have abortions.", especially if those are the punishments that society, through legislation (if it EVER comes to that), has decreed as being appropriate for the crime. The "logical conclusion" in any society governed by law, whether said law is based on Christian principles or not, is that violating the law has consequences and sometimes those consequences are dire, as dire as the crime committed. What's the saying, "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime"? Well, IF, and it's a huge if, we ever convince legislators to criminalize abortion that saying would apply as much to that as to any other crime.

In the meantime, however, until such a day arrives, we will have to use other means at our disposal (which may or may not include religious arguments, depending on who we're talking to) to educate young people about sexual moderation and abstinence and to try to dissuade women from having abortions, and make resources available such as this, for example http://tendercare.org/ on a much greater scale, so that women don't think that abortion is the only viable option for them in an "unwanted" pregnancy.

If you read back you will find several people who say "Murder is Murder is Murder".. When I then ask if they will jail or even exicute Women who have abortions, they have repeatedly said yes.

I am glad you will consider lighter sentences. Keep in mind you will never have such power and neither will they, so keeping the actual power dynamic in mind, I suggest persuasion rather than threats or porjecting some sort of fantisy policial situation that is not really ever going to happen.

Well, murder IS murder. What else would you call it?? It ain't shoplifting and shouldn't be punished as such. I would not necessarily be against imposition of the death penalty, should society decree that, on the person who performs the abortion.

Now, whether or not our society has the collective guts to get to the point of calling abortion murder and imposing appropriate punishment for it, well...I don't expect it, certainly not in what's left of my lifetime, but I won't stop praying for it, either.

It's "murder" based on the metaphysics of your religion. Therefore, tread more lightly. An ordinarily prudent person can look at the same set of facts, without the overlay of your religious beliefs and draw a far different conclusion

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

I think we're confusing two things. One thing is the question of whether abortion constitutes murder. The answer is surely yes. There's really no way to argue from within Orthodoxy that abortion is not murder in every instance, except when done to protect the life the mother, in which case it's "justifiable homicide", in the same way it's justifiable to kill someone who is threatening your life. Even then, we don't say the killing is good, only that it's justifiable.

The other question is whether those who disagree with our views on abortion are culpable if they commit it. I think what Marc is saying is that being a murderer requires the murderer having knowledge of the moral gravity of his actions. Therefore, if you don't believe that killing an unborn child is murder, you are not a murderer, even if from the Orthodox point of view the act itself is murder.

I think that line of reasoning is false, since it introduces moral relativism by the backdoor. The objective moral gravity of a sin is surely not dependent on the beliefs of the sinner. Therefore, I think we can say that, objectively speaking, one who voluntarily kills an unborn child is a murderer.

What we can argue over is how morally culpable the murderer is. Ignorance of the moral gravity of an action CAN be an exculpating factor. I say "can", not "must", because the ignorance itself may be voluntary. We have to consider the possibility that the murderer could have chosen to question his beliefs about abortion, in which case he may have revised them and come to the knowledge that it is indeed a form of murder.

These are obviously difficult questions to which probably only God knows the answer. That is presumably one reason we don't apply laws retroactively. If the law were up to us, I don't think our faith permits any other option than to criminalize abortion as for murder. However, we should not apply the law retroactively to those who committed abortion before, since we should presume they acted in ignorance.

Not precisely my position.

Yes, it is a mitigating circumstance if someone intends to commit a murder or really believes that no human life is being taken. However, a life was still taken so even mitigated, there is still a grave sin.

My primary concern is not really that. There is nothing that compels a Christian to come into the public square and boorishly judge people and threaten them with harm ( jail terms etc.). You can ceratianly justify yourself by pointing out that your Chruch considers Abortion to be a murder. But nothing at all compels anyone from playing that card , except maybe their own pride in being extra Militant.

This tactic is counter productive. It is perfectly reasonable that an ordinarily prudent person can draw the conclusion that an early stage abortion is not the taking of a life. If they are ignorant of something, then they are ignorant of the teachings of Christianity. But objectively speaking, there is no way to know for certain that the "soul" enters the body at conception. That is a religious belief. I suggest treading more lightly if your conclusions are drawn from your faith and not from knowable facts that everyone can plainly see is the case.

OKAY ?

I also suggest waking up the political context. No one is sending Women to jail. Not before during or after anything. There is no possibility of Roe v Wade being overturned. None... Zero... not in any of our lifetimes.

Therefore, the best way to reduce abortion is to put the accusatory finger pointing on the shelf and share your religious understanding of the nature of life and when it may begin and get out of the public/policy square which is the exact wrong place to reach people or have this conversation.......IMHO

It occurs to me that your whole premise is based on the misguided notion that any and every Christian who goes out into the public square, or wherever, to try to convince others not to kill unborn babies does so, necessarily, in a boorish, judgmental, accusatory, threatening manner. I may not be too bright according to you, or as skilled a debater as you, but I do have eyes and at least half a brain and only very, very rarely have I seen such behavior, and it has always turned me off.

I think we're confusing two things. One thing is the question of whether abortion constitutes murder. The answer is surely yes. There's really no way to argue from within Orthodoxy that abortion is not murder in every instance, except when done to protect the life the mother, in which case it's "justifiable homicide", in the same way it's justifiable to kill someone who is threatening your life. Even then, we don't say the killing is good, only that it's justifiable.

The other question is whether those who disagree with our views on abortion are culpable if they commit it. I think what Marc is saying is that being a murderer requires the murderer having knowledge of the moral gravity of his actions. Therefore, if you don't believe that killing an unborn child is murder, you are not a murderer, even if from the Orthodox point of view the act itself is murder.

I think that line of reasoning is false, since it introduces moral relativism by the backdoor. The objective moral gravity of a sin is surely not dependent on the beliefs of the sinner. Therefore, I think we can say that, objectively speaking, one who voluntarily kills an unborn child is a murderer.

What we can argue over is how morally culpable the murderer is. Ignorance of the moral gravity of an action CAN be an exculpating factor. I say "can", not "must", because the ignorance itself may be voluntary. We have to consider the possibility that the murderer could have chosen to question his beliefs about abortion, in which case he may have revised them and come to the knowledge that it is indeed a form of murder.

These are obviously difficult questions to which probably only God knows the answer. That is presumably one reason we don't apply laws retroactively. If the law were up to us, I don't think our faith permits any other option than to criminalize abortion as for murder. However, we should not apply the law retroactively to those who committed abortion before, since we should presume they acted in ignorance.

Good points, Jonathan.

It seems to me, too, that Marc has overlooked the fact, already pointed out somewhere above in all the verbiage, that not all murderers are treated identically, that there are in most if not all states different "degrees" of homicide, and that not all people who are convicted of a particular type or degree of homicide get exactly the same punishment. Criminalizing abortion as murder can also include establishing suitable punishments for it for *both* the mother and the abortionist, perhaps even with a greater punishment for the abortionist. So, no, the definition of abortion as murder does NOT break down, as Marc says, "...when you take it to it's logical conclusion which would be the jailing or execution of Women who have abortions.", especially if those are the punishments that society, through legislation (if it EVER comes to that), has decreed as being appropriate for the crime. The "logical conclusion" in any society governed by law, whether said law is based on Christian principles or not, is that violating the law has consequences and sometimes those consequences are dire, as dire as the crime committed. What's the saying, "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime"? Well, IF, and it's a huge if, we ever convince legislators to criminalize abortion that saying would apply as much to that as to any other crime.

In the meantime, however, until such a day arrives, we will have to use other means at our disposal (which may or may not include religious arguments, depending on who we're talking to) to educate young people about sexual moderation and abstinence and to try to dissuade women from having abortions, and make resources available such as this, for example http://tendercare.org/ on a much greater scale, so that women don't think that abortion is the only viable option for them in an "unwanted" pregnancy.

If you read back you will find several people who say "Murder is Murder is Murder".. When I then ask if they will jail or even exicute Women who have abortions, they have repeatedly said yes.

I am glad you will consider lighter sentences. Keep in mind you will never have such power and neither will they, so keeping the actual power dynamic in mind, I suggest persuasion rather than threats or porjecting some sort of fantisy policial situation that is not really ever going to happen.

Well, murder IS murder. What else would you call it?? It ain't shoplifting and shouldn't be punished as such. I would not necessarily be against imposition of the death penalty, should society decree that, on the person who performs the abortion.

Now, whether or not our society has the collective guts to get to the point of calling abortion murder and imposing appropriate punishment for it, well...I don't expect it, certainly not in what's left of my lifetime, but I won't stop praying for it, either.

It's "murder" based on the metaphysics of your religion. Therefore, tread more lightly. An ordinarily prudent person can look at the same set of facts, without the overlay of your religious beliefs and draw a far different conclusion

It's also "murder" based on the metaphysics of YOUR religion. I don't need you or your officious advice to tell me how to tread when it comes to this, thank you.

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

I think we're confusing two things. One thing is the question of whether abortion constitutes murder. The answer is surely yes. There's really no way to argue from within Orthodoxy that abortion is not murder in every instance, except when done to protect the life the mother, in which case it's "justifiable homicide", in the same way it's justifiable to kill someone who is threatening your life. Even then, we don't say the killing is good, only that it's justifiable.

The other question is whether those who disagree with our views on abortion are culpable if they commit it. I think what Marc is saying is that being a murderer requires the murderer having knowledge of the moral gravity of his actions. Therefore, if you don't believe that killing an unborn child is murder, you are not a murderer, even if from the Orthodox point of view the act itself is murder.

I think that line of reasoning is false, since it introduces moral relativism by the backdoor. The objective moral gravity of a sin is surely not dependent on the beliefs of the sinner. Therefore, I think we can say that, objectively speaking, one who voluntarily kills an unborn child is a murderer.

What we can argue over is how morally culpable the murderer is. Ignorance of the moral gravity of an action CAN be an exculpating factor. I say "can", not "must", because the ignorance itself may be voluntary. We have to consider the possibility that the murderer could have chosen to question his beliefs about abortion, in which case he may have revised them and come to the knowledge that it is indeed a form of murder.

These are obviously difficult questions to which probably only God knows the answer. That is presumably one reason we don't apply laws retroactively. If the law were up to us, I don't think our faith permits any other option than to criminalize abortion as for murder. However, we should not apply the law retroactively to those who committed abortion before, since we should presume they acted in ignorance.

Not precisely my position.

Yes, it is a mitigating circumstance if someone intends to commit a murder or really believes that no human life is being taken. However, a life was still taken so even mitigated, there is still a grave sin.

My primary concern is not really that. There is nothing that compels a Christian to come into the public square and boorishly judge people and threaten them with harm ( jail terms etc.). You can ceratianly justify yourself by pointing out that your Chruch considers Abortion to be a murder. But nothing at all compels anyone from playing that card , except maybe their own pride in being extra Militant.

This tactic is counter productive. It is perfectly reasonable that an ordinarily prudent person can draw the conclusion that an early stage abortion is not the taking of a life. If they are ignorant of something, then they are ignorant of the teachings of Christianity. But objectively speaking, there is no way to know for certain that the "soul" enters the body at conception. That is a religious belief. I suggest treading more lightly if your conclusions are drawn from your faith and not from knowable facts that everyone can plainly see is the case.

OKAY ?

I also suggest waking up the political context. No one is sending Women to jail. Not before during or after anything. There is no possibility of Roe v Wade being overturned. None... Zero... not in any of our lifetimes.

Therefore, the best way to reduce abortion is to put the accusatory finger pointing on the shelf and share your religious understanding of the nature of life and when it may begin and get out of the public/policy square which is the exact wrong place to reach people or have this conversation.......IMHO

It occurs to me that your whole premise is based on the misguided notion that any and every Christian who goes out into the public square, or wherever, to try to convince others not to kill unborn babies does so, necessarily, in a boorish, judgmental, accusatory, threatening manner. I may not be too bright according to you, or as skilled a debater as you, but I do have eyes and at least half a brain and only very, very rarely have I seen such behavior, and it has always turned me off.

1. I hope you are not excluding yourself in that judgment. If you also want to include me, then go right ahead.

2. This forum is NOT the public square, as I've pointed out several times already, and we are not discussing HERE the issues in necessarily the same manner as we would out in the public square. What will it take for you to get that??

Because it's a dodge.. You dont want to discuss the implications of calling people murders and threatening them with harm because it damages your agenda.

« Last Edit: April 03, 2013, 03:04:19 PM by Marc1152 »

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

I think we're confusing two things. One thing is the question of whether abortion constitutes murder. The answer is surely yes. There's really no way to argue from within Orthodoxy that abortion is not murder in every instance, except when done to protect the life the mother, in which case it's "justifiable homicide", in the same way it's justifiable to kill someone who is threatening your life. Even then, we don't say the killing is good, only that it's justifiable.

The other question is whether those who disagree with our views on abortion are culpable if they commit it. I think what Marc is saying is that being a murderer requires the murderer having knowledge of the moral gravity of his actions. Therefore, if you don't believe that killing an unborn child is murder, you are not a murderer, even if from the Orthodox point of view the act itself is murder.

I think that line of reasoning is false, since it introduces moral relativism by the backdoor. The objective moral gravity of a sin is surely not dependent on the beliefs of the sinner. Therefore, I think we can say that, objectively speaking, one who voluntarily kills an unborn child is a murderer.

What we can argue over is how morally culpable the murderer is. Ignorance of the moral gravity of an action CAN be an exculpating factor. I say "can", not "must", because the ignorance itself may be voluntary. We have to consider the possibility that the murderer could have chosen to question his beliefs about abortion, in which case he may have revised them and come to the knowledge that it is indeed a form of murder.

These are obviously difficult questions to which probably only God knows the answer. That is presumably one reason we don't apply laws retroactively. If the law were up to us, I don't think our faith permits any other option than to criminalize abortion as for murder. However, we should not apply the law retroactively to those who committed abortion before, since we should presume they acted in ignorance.

Good points, Jonathan.

It seems to me, too, that Marc has overlooked the fact, already pointed out somewhere above in all the verbiage, that not all murderers are treated identically, that there are in most if not all states different "degrees" of homicide, and that not all people who are convicted of a particular type or degree of homicide get exactly the same punishment. Criminalizing abortion as murder can also include establishing suitable punishments for it for *both* the mother and the abortionist, perhaps even with a greater punishment for the abortionist. So, no, the definition of abortion as murder does NOT break down, as Marc says, "...when you take it to it's logical conclusion which would be the jailing or execution of Women who have abortions.", especially if those are the punishments that society, through legislation (if it EVER comes to that), has decreed as being appropriate for the crime. The "logical conclusion" in any society governed by law, whether said law is based on Christian principles or not, is that violating the law has consequences and sometimes those consequences are dire, as dire as the crime committed. What's the saying, "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime"? Well, IF, and it's a huge if, we ever convince legislators to criminalize abortion that saying would apply as much to that as to any other crime.

In the meantime, however, until such a day arrives, we will have to use other means at our disposal (which may or may not include religious arguments, depending on who we're talking to) to educate young people about sexual moderation and abstinence and to try to dissuade women from having abortions, and make resources available such as this, for example http://tendercare.org/ on a much greater scale, so that women don't think that abortion is the only viable option for them in an "unwanted" pregnancy.

If you read back you will find several people who say "Murder is Murder is Murder".. When I then ask if they will jail or even exicute Women who have abortions, they have repeatedly said yes.

I am glad you will consider lighter sentences. Keep in mind you will never have such power and neither will they, so keeping the actual power dynamic in mind, I suggest persuasion rather than threats or porjecting some sort of fantisy policial situation that is not really ever going to happen.

Well, murder IS murder. What else would you call it?? It ain't shoplifting and shouldn't be punished as such. I would not necessarily be against imposition of the death penalty, should society decree that, on the person who performs the abortion.

Now, whether or not our society has the collective guts to get to the point of calling abortion murder and imposing appropriate punishment for it, well...I don't expect it, certainly not in what's left of my lifetime, but I won't stop praying for it, either.

It's "murder" based on the metaphysics of your religion. Therefore, tread more lightly. An ordinarily prudent person can look at the same set of facts, without the overlay of your religious beliefs and draw a far different conclusion

It's also "murder" based on the metaphysics of YOUR religion. I don't need you or your officious advice to tell me how to tread when it comes to this, thank you.

Just a suggestion.. You are free to be as counterproductive as you want to be.

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

I think we're confusing two things. One thing is the question of whether abortion constitutes murder. The answer is surely yes. There's really no way to argue from within Orthodoxy that abortion is not murder in every instance, except when done to protect the life the mother, in which case it's "justifiable homicide", in the same way it's justifiable to kill someone who is threatening your life. Even then, we don't say the killing is good, only that it's justifiable.

The other question is whether those who disagree with our views on abortion are culpable if they commit it. I think what Marc is saying is that being a murderer requires the murderer having knowledge of the moral gravity of his actions. Therefore, if you don't believe that killing an unborn child is murder, you are not a murderer, even if from the Orthodox point of view the act itself is murder.

I think that line of reasoning is false, since it introduces moral relativism by the backdoor. The objective moral gravity of a sin is surely not dependent on the beliefs of the sinner. Therefore, I think we can say that, objectively speaking, one who voluntarily kills an unborn child is a murderer.

What we can argue over is how morally culpable the murderer is. Ignorance of the moral gravity of an action CAN be an exculpating factor. I say "can", not "must", because the ignorance itself may be voluntary. We have to consider the possibility that the murderer could have chosen to question his beliefs about abortion, in which case he may have revised them and come to the knowledge that it is indeed a form of murder.

These are obviously difficult questions to which probably only God knows the answer. That is presumably one reason we don't apply laws retroactively. If the law were up to us, I don't think our faith permits any other option than to criminalize abortion as for murder. However, we should not apply the law retroactively to those who committed abortion before, since we should presume they acted in ignorance.

Not precisely my position.

Yes, it is a mitigating circumstance if someone intends to commit a murder or really believes that no human life is being taken. However, a life was still taken so even mitigated, there is still a grave sin.

My primary concern is not really that. There is nothing that compels a Christian to come into the public square and boorishly judge people and threaten them with harm ( jail terms etc.). You can ceratianly justify yourself by pointing out that your Chruch considers Abortion to be a murder. But nothing at all compels anyone from playing that card , except maybe their own pride in being extra Militant.

This tactic is counter productive. It is perfectly reasonable that an ordinarily prudent person can draw the conclusion that an early stage abortion is not the taking of a life. If they are ignorant of something, then they are ignorant of the teachings of Christianity. But objectively speaking, there is no way to know for certain that the "soul" enters the body at conception. That is a religious belief. I suggest treading more lightly if your conclusions are drawn from your faith and not from knowable facts that everyone can plainly see is the case.

OKAY ?

I also suggest waking up the political context. No one is sending Women to jail. Not before during or after anything. There is no possibility of Roe v Wade being overturned. None... Zero... not in any of our lifetimes.

Therefore, the best way to reduce abortion is to put the accusatory finger pointing on the shelf and share your religious understanding of the nature of life and when it may begin and get out of the public/policy square which is the exact wrong place to reach people or have this conversation.......IMHO

It occurs to me that your whole premise is based on the misguided notion that any and every Christian who goes out into the public square, or wherever, to try to convince others not to kill unborn babies does so, necessarily, in a boorish, judgmental, accusatory, threatening manner. I may not be too bright according to you, or as skilled a debater as you, but I do have eyes and at least half a brain and only very, very rarely have I seen such behavior, and it has always turned me off.

1. I hope you are not excluding yourself in that judgment. If you also want to include me, then go right ahead.

2. This forum is NOT the public square, as I've pointed out several times already, and we are not discussing HERE the issues in necessarily the same manner as we would out in the public square. What will it take for you to get that??

Because it's a dodge.. You dont want to discuss the implications of calling people murders and threatening them with harm because it damages your agenda.

That's b.s. And you know it. I have no problem discussing "the implications of calling people murders... "(sic). It is not me threatening anyone with anything. If something is wrong and there are ramifications with doing that something, it isn't me imposing those ramifications. What do you think my agenda is, pray tell? And just what is YOUR agenda? Please don't be so condescending as to pretend you don't have one.

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

I think we're confusing two things. One thing is the question of whether abortion constitutes murder. The answer is surely yes. There's really no way to argue from within Orthodoxy that abortion is not murder in every instance, except when done to protect the life the mother, in which case it's "justifiable homicide", in the same way it's justifiable to kill someone who is threatening your life. Even then, we don't say the killing is good, only that it's justifiable.

The other question is whether those who disagree with our views on abortion are culpable if they commit it. I think what Marc is saying is that being a murderer requires the murderer having knowledge of the moral gravity of his actions. Therefore, if you don't believe that killing an unborn child is murder, you are not a murderer, even if from the Orthodox point of view the act itself is murder.

I think that line of reasoning is false, since it introduces moral relativism by the backdoor. The objective moral gravity of a sin is surely not dependent on the beliefs of the sinner. Therefore, I think we can say that, objectively speaking, one who voluntarily kills an unborn child is a murderer.

What we can argue over is how morally culpable the murderer is. Ignorance of the moral gravity of an action CAN be an exculpating factor. I say "can", not "must", because the ignorance itself may be voluntary. We have to consider the possibility that the murderer could have chosen to question his beliefs about abortion, in which case he may have revised them and come to the knowledge that it is indeed a form of murder.

These are obviously difficult questions to which probably only God knows the answer. That is presumably one reason we don't apply laws retroactively. If the law were up to us, I don't think our faith permits any other option than to criminalize abortion as for murder. However, we should not apply the law retroactively to those who committed abortion before, since we should presume they acted in ignorance.

Good points, Jonathan.

It seems to me, too, that Marc has overlooked the fact, already pointed out somewhere above in all the verbiage, that not all murderers are treated identically, that there are in most if not all states different "degrees" of homicide, and that not all people who are convicted of a particular type or degree of homicide get exactly the same punishment. Criminalizing abortion as murder can also include establishing suitable punishments for it for *both* the mother and the abortionist, perhaps even with a greater punishment for the abortionist. So, no, the definition of abortion as murder does NOT break down, as Marc says, "...when you take it to it's logical conclusion which would be the jailing or execution of Women who have abortions.", especially if those are the punishments that society, through legislation (if it EVER comes to that), has decreed as being appropriate for the crime. The "logical conclusion" in any society governed by law, whether said law is based on Christian principles or not, is that violating the law has consequences and sometimes those consequences are dire, as dire as the crime committed. What's the saying, "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime"? Well, IF, and it's a huge if, we ever convince legislators to criminalize abortion that saying would apply as much to that as to any other crime.

In the meantime, however, until such a day arrives, we will have to use other means at our disposal (which may or may not include religious arguments, depending on who we're talking to) to educate young people about sexual moderation and abstinence and to try to dissuade women from having abortions, and make resources available such as this, for example http://tendercare.org/ on a much greater scale, so that women don't think that abortion is the only viable option for them in an "unwanted" pregnancy.

If you read back you will find several people who say "Murder is Murder is Murder".. When I then ask if they will jail or even exicute Women who have abortions, they have repeatedly said yes.

I am glad you will consider lighter sentences. Keep in mind you will never have such power and neither will they, so keeping the actual power dynamic in mind, I suggest persuasion rather than threats or porjecting some sort of fantisy policial situation that is not really ever going to happen.

Well, murder IS murder. What else would you call it?? It ain't shoplifting and shouldn't be punished as such. I would not necessarily be against imposition of the death penalty, should society decree that, on the person who performs the abortion.

Now, whether or not our society has the collective guts to get to the point of calling abortion murder and imposing appropriate punishment for it, well...I don't expect it, certainly not in what's left of my lifetime, but I won't stop praying for it, either.

It's "murder" based on the metaphysics of your religion. Therefore, tread more lightly. An ordinarily prudent person can look at the same set of facts, without the overlay of your religious beliefs and draw a far different conclusion

It's also "murder" based on the metaphysics of YOUR religion. I don't need you or your officious advice to tell me how to tread when it comes to this, thank you.

Just a suggestion.. You are free to be as counterproductive as you want to be.

Thank you, kind sir, for your gracious permission, kind sir...

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

I think we're confusing two things. One thing is the question of whether abortion constitutes murder. The answer is surely yes. There's really no way to argue from within Orthodoxy that abortion is not murder in every instance, except when done to protect the life the mother, in which case it's "justifiable homicide", in the same way it's justifiable to kill someone who is threatening your life. Even then, we don't say the killing is good, only that it's justifiable.

The other question is whether those who disagree with our views on abortion are culpable if they commit it. I think what Marc is saying is that being a murderer requires the murderer having knowledge of the moral gravity of his actions. Therefore, if you don't believe that killing an unborn child is murder, you are not a murderer, even if from the Orthodox point of view the act itself is murder.

I think that line of reasoning is false, since it introduces moral relativism by the backdoor. The objective moral gravity of a sin is surely not dependent on the beliefs of the sinner. Therefore, I think we can say that, objectively speaking, one who voluntarily kills an unborn child is a murderer.

What we can argue over is how morally culpable the murderer is. Ignorance of the moral gravity of an action CAN be an exculpating factor. I say "can", not "must", because the ignorance itself may be voluntary. We have to consider the possibility that the murderer could have chosen to question his beliefs about abortion, in which case he may have revised them and come to the knowledge that it is indeed a form of murder.

These are obviously difficult questions to which probably only God knows the answer. That is presumably one reason we don't apply laws retroactively. If the law were up to us, I don't think our faith permits any other option than to criminalize abortion as for murder. However, we should not apply the law retroactively to those who committed abortion before, since we should presume they acted in ignorance.

Not precisely my position.

Yes, it is a mitigating circumstance if someone intends to commit a murder or really believes that no human life is being taken. However, a life was still taken so even mitigated, there is still a grave sin.

My primary concern is not really that. There is nothing that compels a Christian to come into the public square and boorishly judge people and threaten them with harm ( jail terms etc.). You can ceratianly justify yourself by pointing out that your Chruch considers Abortion to be a murder. But nothing at all compels anyone from playing that card , except maybe their own pride in being extra Militant.

This tactic is counter productive. It is perfectly reasonable that an ordinarily prudent person can draw the conclusion that an early stage abortion is not the taking of a life. If they are ignorant of something, then they are ignorant of the teachings of Christianity. But objectively speaking, there is no way to know for certain that the "soul" enters the body at conception. That is a religious belief. I suggest treading more lightly if your conclusions are drawn from your faith and not from knowable facts that everyone can plainly see is the case.

OKAY ?

I also suggest waking up the political context. No one is sending Women to jail. Not before during or after anything. There is no possibility of Roe v Wade being overturned. None... Zero... not in any of our lifetimes.

Therefore, the best way to reduce abortion is to put the accusatory finger pointing on the shelf and share your religious understanding of the nature of life and when it may begin and get out of the public/policy square which is the exact wrong place to reach people or have this conversation.......IMHO

Ah I think we've identified the problem. You are distinguishing between "knowledge" and "religious belief", as if we don't already know that both soul and body are created at conception. The belief that life begins at conception is not an irrational superstition, but a rational belief grounded not only in the teaching of the Church but also in our own reason.

Our task is to persuade others that it is reasonable to believe that life begins at conception; from there it should be straightforward to demonstrate that abortion is murder and should be treated as such under the law. Some others have already contributed to this with good arguments. But you shouldn't concede to the secularists that our beliefs are irrational. If you really believe that, you've more or less conceded that your entire belief system is irrational.

You say a zygote is a full blown person with a 'soul'. A person isnt necessarily a Nazi genocidal killer, or a homicidal manic, or a mass murderer if they don't accept that..

This ranks as probably one of the most stupid statements on this thread. So, per your belief, Nazis are not necessarily genocidal killers because they did not believe Jews to be fully human. The KKK should continue decorating trees with black people because they do not belive black people to be fully human. The idea of what constitues a human has been behing nearly every mass killing. Abortion is no different.

Punch, you must have been tired when you read this post. You forgot to repost the quote with bold: "A person isnt necessarily a Nazi genocidal killer, or a homicidal manic, or a mass murderer if they don't accept that.."To be honest with you, I cannot believe that ROCOR tolerates this. He would be out on his sorry hide if he were in our jurisdiction. As for Orthoabnorm, I wish I could say that I don't know why the OCA has not hit the button on the ejection seat, but I do.

Awesome. We know how you would handle someone who posts on the internet in a way you dislike.

Let's get to the only question I've seriously posed:

Why don't you behave as though an act which you claim to believe is murder, abortion, which is clearly within your ability to stop, well at least one or two, in the same manner as you would any murder which you could stop.

If someone had a gun to a child's head and they had some weird scam cooked up to where they could literally get away with the murder and if you stopped them, you would see at least see some jail time, would you stop them?

If one's response would be different then there is a disconnect somewhere.

The interesting question is why don't people who claim to believe abortion is murder hardly ever act as though it is.

The parallels to overseas famine and the like are not quite the same but in a world dominated by globalization become more and more similar for those of us in the "first" world.

So unlike some, I don't claim some insane moral high ground over others and anathematize them over the internet and the like while acting nearly in the same manner as those I am passing judgement upon.

No, I am honest and say I don't interfere with abortion in virtue of the fact that way in which we understand murder relies on how we understand personhood and some people are just to a lesser degree persons to me than others.

Some humans are not persons at all in my world. (The internet tells me 105 humans die a minute. Yet I barely am affected by this, let someone I know closely die, that's another story. Or someone who I don't know who is close to someone I know. Different story. Let a person die who is not a "real" human die. And it may be another story.)

Perhaps a saint can relate to every person, human or otherwise, in a like manner. I don't. No one I know does.

If abortion is murder, then we are all accomplices at the least, murders truly in fact to the degree we allow any to die so that we might ourselves live or so we might provide for "our" families.

I think we're confusing two things. One thing is the question of whether abortion constitutes murder. The answer is surely yes. There's really no way to argue from within Orthodoxy that abortion is not murder in every instance, except when done to protect the life the mother, in which case it's "justifiable homicide", in the same way it's justifiable to kill someone who is threatening your life. Even then, we don't say the killing is good, only that it's justifiable.

The other question is whether those who disagree with our views on abortion are culpable if they commit it. I think what Marc is saying is that being a murderer requires the murderer having knowledge of the moral gravity of his actions. Therefore, if you don't believe that killing an unborn child is murder, you are not a murderer, even if from the Orthodox point of view the act itself is murder.

I think that line of reasoning is false, since it introduces moral relativism by the backdoor. The objective moral gravity of a sin is surely not dependent on the beliefs of the sinner. Therefore, I think we can say that, objectively speaking, one who voluntarily kills an unborn child is a murderer.

What we can argue over is how morally culpable the murderer is. Ignorance of the moral gravity of an action CAN be an exculpating factor. I say "can", not "must", because the ignorance itself may be voluntary. We have to consider the possibility that the murderer could have chosen to question his beliefs about abortion, in which case he may have revised them and come to the knowledge that it is indeed a form of murder.

These are obviously difficult questions to which probably only God knows the answer. That is presumably one reason we don't apply laws retroactively. If the law were up to us, I don't think our faith permits any other option than to criminalize abortion as for murder. However, we should not apply the law retroactively to those who committed abortion before, since we should presume they acted in ignorance.

Not precisely my position.

Yes, it is a mitigating circumstance if someone intends to commit a murder or really believes that no human life is being taken. However, a life was still taken so even mitigated, there is still a grave sin.

My primary concern is not really that. There is nothing that compels a Christian to come into the public square and boorishly judge people and threaten them with harm ( jail terms etc.). You can ceratianly justify yourself by pointing out that your Chruch considers Abortion to be a murder. But nothing at all compels anyone from playing that card , except maybe their own pride in being extra Militant.

This tactic is counter productive. It is perfectly reasonable that an ordinarily prudent person can draw the conclusion that an early stage abortion is not the taking of a life. If they are ignorant of something, then they are ignorant of the teachings of Christianity. But objectively speaking, there is no way to know for certain that the "soul" enters the body at conception. That is a religious belief. I suggest treading more lightly if your conclusions are drawn from your faith and not from knowable facts that everyone can plainly see is the case.

OKAY ?

I also suggest waking up the political context. No one is sending Women to jail. Not before during or after anything. There is no possibility of Roe v Wade being overturned. None... Zero... not in any of our lifetimes.

Therefore, the best way to reduce abortion is to put the accusatory finger pointing on the shelf and share your religious understanding of the nature of life and when it may begin and get out of the public/policy square which is the exact wrong place to reach people or have this conversation.......IMHO

It occurs to me that your whole premise is based on the misguided notion that any and every Christian who goes out into the public square, or wherever, to try to convince others not to kill unborn babies does so, necessarily, in a boorish, judgmental, accusatory, threatening manner. I may not be too bright according to you, or as skilled a debater as you, but I do have eyes and at least half a brain and only very, very rarely have I seen such behavior, and it has always turned me off.

I think we're confusing two things. One thing is the question of whether abortion constitutes murder. The answer is surely yes. There's really no way to argue from within Orthodoxy that abortion is not murder in every instance, except when done to protect the life the mother, in which case it's "justifiable homicide", in the same way it's justifiable to kill someone who is threatening your life. Even then, we don't say the killing is good, only that it's justifiable.

The other question is whether those who disagree with our views on abortion are culpable if they commit it. I think what Marc is saying is that being a murderer requires the murderer having knowledge of the moral gravity of his actions. Therefore, if you don't believe that killing an unborn child is murder, you are not a murderer, even if from the Orthodox point of view the act itself is murder.

I think that line of reasoning is false, since it introduces moral relativism by the backdoor. The objective moral gravity of a sin is surely not dependent on the beliefs of the sinner. Therefore, I think we can say that, objectively speaking, one who voluntarily kills an unborn child is a murderer.

What we can argue over is how morally culpable the murderer is. Ignorance of the moral gravity of an action CAN be an exculpating factor. I say "can", not "must", because the ignorance itself may be voluntary. We have to consider the possibility that the murderer could have chosen to question his beliefs about abortion, in which case he may have revised them and come to the knowledge that it is indeed a form of murder.

These are obviously difficult questions to which probably only God knows the answer. That is presumably one reason we don't apply laws retroactively. If the law were up to us, I don't think our faith permits any other option than to criminalize abortion as for murder. However, we should not apply the law retroactively to those who committed abortion before, since we should presume they acted in ignorance.

Not precisely my position.

Yes, it is a mitigating circumstance if someone intends to commit a murder or really believes that no human life is being taken. However, a life was still taken so even mitigated, there is still a grave sin.

My primary concern is not really that. There is nothing that compels a Christian to come into the public square and boorishly judge people and threaten them with harm ( jail terms etc.). You can ceratianly justify yourself by pointing out that your Chruch considers Abortion to be a murder. But nothing at all compels anyone from playing that card , except maybe their own pride in being extra Militant.

This tactic is counter productive. It is perfectly reasonable that an ordinarily prudent person can draw the conclusion that an early stage abortion is not the taking of a life. If they are ignorant of something, then they are ignorant of the teachings of Christianity. But objectively speaking, there is no way to know for certain that the "soul" enters the body at conception. That is a religious belief. I suggest treading more lightly if your conclusions are drawn from your faith and not from knowable facts that everyone can plainly see is the case.

OKAY ?

I also suggest waking up the political context. No one is sending Women to jail. Not before during or after anything. There is no possibility of Roe v Wade being overturned. None... Zero... not in any of our lifetimes.

Therefore, the best way to reduce abortion is to put the accusatory finger pointing on the shelf and share your religious understanding of the nature of life and when it may begin and get out of the public/policy square which is the exact wrong place to reach people or have this conversation.......IMHO

Ah I think we've identified the problem. You are distinguishing between "knowledge" and "religious belief", as if we don't already know that both soul and body are created at conception. The belief that life begins at conception is not an irrational superstition, but a rational belief grounded not only in the teaching of the Church but also in our own reason.

Our task is to persuade others that it is reasonable to believe that life begins at conception; from there it should be straightforward to demonstrate that abortion is murder and should be treated as such under the law. Some others have already contributed to this with good arguments. But you shouldn't concede to the secularists that our beliefs are irrational. If you really believe that, you've more or less conceded that your entire belief system is irrational.

mmmmmmmmmmm..Not really

The religious beliefs we are discussing are not based on "reason". In other words they cant be deduced from the facts as we find them. There is an invisible hand involved. The religious belief that soul and body are created together is "reasonable" only to the extent that it is internally logical. But it can't really hold up to rigors scrutiny based on observable, measurable facts. It's requires faith in a list of metaphysical pre suppositions not at all in evidence.

I am not advocating discarding those pre suppostions.. Just be careful when you call someone a Murderer when they don't subscribe to the same list.

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

I think we're confusing two things. One thing is the question of whether abortion constitutes murder. The answer is surely yes. There's really no way to argue from within Orthodoxy that abortion is not murder in every instance, except when done to protect the life the mother, in which case it's "justifiable homicide", in the same way it's justifiable to kill someone who is threatening your life. Even then, we don't say the killing is good, only that it's justifiable.

The other question is whether those who disagree with our views on abortion are culpable if they commit it. I think what Marc is saying is that being a murderer requires the murderer having knowledge of the moral gravity of his actions. Therefore, if you don't believe that killing an unborn child is murder, you are not a murderer, even if from the Orthodox point of view the act itself is murder.

I think that line of reasoning is false, since it introduces moral relativism by the backdoor. The objective moral gravity of a sin is surely not dependent on the beliefs of the sinner. Therefore, I think we can say that, objectively speaking, one who voluntarily kills an unborn child is a murderer.

What we can argue over is how morally culpable the murderer is. Ignorance of the moral gravity of an action CAN be an exculpating factor. I say "can", not "must", because the ignorance itself may be voluntary. We have to consider the possibility that the murderer could have chosen to question his beliefs about abortion, in which case he may have revised them and come to the knowledge that it is indeed a form of murder.

These are obviously difficult questions to which probably only God knows the answer. That is presumably one reason we don't apply laws retroactively. If the law were up to us, I don't think our faith permits any other option than to criminalize abortion as for murder. However, we should not apply the law retroactively to those who committed abortion before, since we should presume they acted in ignorance.

Not precisely my position.

Yes, it is a mitigating circumstance if someone intends to commit a murder or really believes that no human life is being taken. However, a life was still taken so even mitigated, there is still a grave sin.

My primary concern is not really that. There is nothing that compels a Christian to come into the public square and boorishly judge people and threaten them with harm ( jail terms etc.). You can ceratianly justify yourself by pointing out that your Chruch considers Abortion to be a murder. But nothing at all compels anyone from playing that card , except maybe their own pride in being extra Militant.

This tactic is counter productive. It is perfectly reasonable that an ordinarily prudent person can draw the conclusion that an early stage abortion is not the taking of a life. If they are ignorant of something, then they are ignorant of the teachings of Christianity. But objectively speaking, there is no way to know for certain that the "soul" enters the body at conception. That is a religious belief. I suggest treading more lightly if your conclusions are drawn from your faith and not from knowable facts that everyone can plainly see is the case.

OKAY ?

I also suggest waking up the political context. No one is sending Women to jail. Not before during or after anything. There is no possibility of Roe v Wade being overturned. None... Zero... not in any of our lifetimes.

Therefore, the best way to reduce abortion is to put the accusatory finger pointing on the shelf and share your religious understanding of the nature of life and when it may begin and get out of the public/policy square which is the exact wrong place to reach people or have this conversation.......IMHO

It occurs to me that your whole premise is based on the misguided notion that any and every Christian who goes out into the public square, or wherever, to try to convince others not to kill unborn babies does so, necessarily, in a boorish, judgmental, accusatory, threatening manner. I may not be too bright according to you, or as skilled a debater as you, but I do have eyes and at least half a brain and only very, very rarely have I seen such behavior, and it has always turned me off.

I think we're confusing two things. One thing is the question of whether abortion constitutes murder. The answer is surely yes. There's really no way to argue from within Orthodoxy that abortion is not murder in every instance, except when done to protect the life the mother, in which case it's "justifiable homicide", in the same way it's justifiable to kill someone who is threatening your life. Even then, we don't say the killing is good, only that it's justifiable.

The other question is whether those who disagree with our views on abortion are culpable if they commit it. I think what Marc is saying is that being a murderer requires the murderer having knowledge of the moral gravity of his actions. Therefore, if you don't believe that killing an unborn child is murder, you are not a murderer, even if from the Orthodox point of view the act itself is murder.

I think that line of reasoning is false, since it introduces moral relativism by the backdoor. The objective moral gravity of a sin is surely not dependent on the beliefs of the sinner. Therefore, I think we can say that, objectively speaking, one who voluntarily kills an unborn child is a murderer.

What we can argue over is how morally culpable the murderer is. Ignorance of the moral gravity of an action CAN be an exculpating factor. I say "can", not "must", because the ignorance itself may be voluntary. We have to consider the possibility that the murderer could have chosen to question his beliefs about abortion, in which case he may have revised them and come to the knowledge that it is indeed a form of murder.

These are obviously difficult questions to which probably only God knows the answer. That is presumably one reason we don't apply laws retroactively. If the law were up to us, I don't think our faith permits any other option than to criminalize abortion as for murder. However, we should not apply the law retroactively to those who committed abortion before, since we should presume they acted in ignorance.

Not precisely my position.

Yes, it is a mitigating circumstance if someone intends to commit a murder or really believes that no human life is being taken. However, a life was still taken so even mitigated, there is still a grave sin.

My primary concern is not really that. There is nothing that compels a Christian to come into the public square and boorishly judge people and threaten them with harm ( jail terms etc.). You can ceratianly justify yourself by pointing out that your Chruch considers Abortion to be a murder. But nothing at all compels anyone from playing that card , except maybe their own pride in being extra Militant.

This tactic is counter productive. It is perfectly reasonable that an ordinarily prudent person can draw the conclusion that an early stage abortion is not the taking of a life. If they are ignorant of something, then they are ignorant of the teachings of Christianity. But objectively speaking, there is no way to know for certain that the "soul" enters the body at conception. That is a religious belief. I suggest treading more lightly if your conclusions are drawn from your faith and not from knowable facts that everyone can plainly see is the case.

OKAY ?

I also suggest waking up the political context. No one is sending Women to jail. Not before during or after anything. There is no possibility of Roe v Wade being overturned. None... Zero... not in any of our lifetimes.

Therefore, the best way to reduce abortion is to put the accusatory finger pointing on the shelf and share your religious understanding of the nature of life and when it may begin and get out of the public/policy square which is the exact wrong place to reach people or have this conversation.......IMHO

It occurs to me that your whole premise is based on the misguided notion that any and every Christian who goes out into the public square, or wherever, to try to convince others not to kill unborn babies does so, necessarily, in a boorish, judgmental, accusatory, threatening manner. I may not be too bright according to you, or as skilled a debater as you, but I do have eyes and at least half a brain and only very, very rarely have I seen such behavior, and it has always turned me off.

You say a zygote is a full blown person with a 'soul'. A person isnt necessarily a Nazi genocidal killer, or a homicidal manic, or a mass murderer if they don't accept that..

This ranks as probably one of the most stupid statements on this thread. So, per your belief, Nazis are not necessarily genocidal killers because they did not believe Jews to be fully human. The KKK should continue decorating trees with black people because they do not belive black people to be fully human. The idea of what constitues a human has been behing nearly every mass killing. Abortion is no different.

Punch, you must have been tired when you read this post. You forgot to repost the quote with bold: "A person isnt necessarily a Nazi genocidal killer, or a homicidal manic, or a mass murderer if they don't accept that.."To be honest with you, I cannot believe that ROCOR tolerates this. He would be out on his sorry hide if he were in our jurisdiction. As for Orthoabnorm, I wish I could say that I don't know why the OCA has not hit the button on the ejection seat, but I do.

Let's get to the only question I've seriously posed:

Why don't you behave as though an act which you claim to believe is murder, abortion, which is clearly within your ability to stop, well at least one or two, in the same manner as you would any murder which you could stop.

Um, yea, so I have and I do. "Why don't you..." implies that you know me and what I have done. But instead you ignorantly and falsely presume.

You say a zygote is a full blown person with a 'soul'. A person isnt necessarily a Nazi genocidal killer, or a homicidal manic, or a mass murderer if they don't accept that..

This ranks as probably one of the most stupid statements on this thread. So, per your belief, Nazis are not necessarily genocidal killers because they did not believe Jews to be fully human. The KKK should continue decorating trees with black people because they do not belive black people to be fully human. The idea of what constitues a human has been behing nearly every mass killing. Abortion is no different.

Punch, you must have been tired when you read this post. You forgot to repost the quote with bold: "A person isnt necessarily a Nazi genocidal killer, or a homicidal manic, or a mass murderer if they don't accept that.."To be honest with you, I cannot believe that ROCOR tolerates this. He would be out on his sorry hide if he were in our jurisdiction. As for Orthoabnorm, I wish I could say that I don't know why the OCA has not hit the button on the ejection seat, but I do.

Let's get to the only question I've seriously posed:

Why don't you behave as though an act which you claim to believe is murder, abortion, which is clearly within your ability to stop, well at least one or two, in the same manner as you would any murder which you could stop.

Um, yea, so I have and I do. "Why don't you..." implies that you know me and what I have done. But instead you ignorantly and falsely presume.

The implication and presumption goes even further...that he knows everyone who believes abortion is murder, and knows what they have done.

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

You say a zygote is a full blown person with a 'soul'. A person isnt necessarily a Nazi genocidal killer, or a homicidal manic, or a mass murderer if they don't accept that..

This ranks as probably one of the most stupid statements on this thread. So, per your belief, Nazis are not necessarily genocidal killers because they did not believe Jews to be fully human. The KKK should continue decorating trees with black people because they do not belive black people to be fully human. The idea of what constitues a human has been behing nearly every mass killing. Abortion is no different.

Punch, you must have been tired when you read this post. You forgot to repost the quote with bold: "A person isnt necessarily a Nazi genocidal killer, or a homicidal manic, or a mass murderer if they don't accept that.."To be honest with you, I cannot believe that ROCOR tolerates this. He would be out on his sorry hide if he were in our jurisdiction. As for Orthoabnorm, I wish I could say that I don't know why the OCA has not hit the button on the ejection seat, but I do.

Let's get to the only question I've seriously posed:

Why don't you behave as though an act which you claim to believe is murder, abortion, which is clearly within your ability to stop, well at least one or two, in the same manner as you would any murder which you could stop.

Um, yea, so I have and I do. "Why don't you..." implies that you know me and what I have done. But instead you ignorantly and falsely presume.

The implication and presumption goes even further...that he knows everyone who believes abortion is murder, and knows what they have done.

You say a zygote is a full blown person with a 'soul'. A person isnt necessarily a Nazi genocidal killer, or a homicidal manic, or a mass murderer if they don't accept that..

This ranks as probably one of the most stupid statements on this thread. So, per your belief, Nazis are not necessarily genocidal killers because they did not believe Jews to be fully human. The KKK should continue decorating trees with black people because they do not belive black people to be fully human. The idea of what constitues a human has been behing nearly every mass killing. Abortion is no different.

Punch, you must have been tired when you read this post. You forgot to repost the quote with bold: "A person isnt necessarily a Nazi genocidal killer, or a homicidal manic, or a mass murderer if they don't accept that.."To be honest with you, I cannot believe that ROCOR tolerates this. He would be out on his sorry hide if he were in our jurisdiction. As for Orthoabnorm, I wish I could say that I don't know why the OCA has not hit the button on the ejection seat, but I do.

Let's get to the only question I've seriously posed:

Why don't you behave as though an act which you claim to believe is murder, abortion, which is clearly within your ability to stop, well at least one or two, in the same manner as you would any murder which you could stop.

Um, yea, so I have and I do. "Why don't you..." implies that you know me and what I have done. But instead you ignorantly and falsely presume.

The implication and presumption goes even further...that he knows everyone who believes abortion is murder, and knows what they have done.

And how everyone would react to murder.

Yup.

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

You say a zygote is a full blown person with a 'soul'. A person isnt necessarily a Nazi genocidal killer, or a homicidal manic, or a mass murderer if they don't accept that..

This ranks as probably one of the most stupid statements on this thread. So, per your belief, Nazis are not necessarily genocidal killers because they did not believe Jews to be fully human. The KKK should continue decorating trees with black people because they do not belive black people to be fully human. The idea of what constitues a human has been behing nearly every mass killing. Abortion is no different.

Punch, you must have been tired when you read this post. You forgot to repost the quote with bold: "A person isnt necessarily a Nazi genocidal killer, or a homicidal manic, or a mass murderer if they don't accept that.."To be honest with you, I cannot believe that ROCOR tolerates this. He would be out on his sorry hide if he were in our jurisdiction. As for Orthoabnorm, I wish I could say that I don't know why the OCA has not hit the button on the ejection seat, but I do.

Let's get to the only question I've seriously posed:

Why don't you behave as though an act which you claim to believe is murder, abortion, which is clearly within your ability to stop, well at least one or two, in the same manner as you would any murder which you could stop.

Um, yea, so I have and I do. "Why don't you..." implies that you know me and what I have done. But instead you ignorantly and falsely presume.

You posting from prison?

Cause that is where it would take you in the US within a small amount of time.

Then again maybe you spend every other minute of your existence not here warehousing women who would abort against their will till they birth and they see the light and go back to society.

You say a zygote is a full blown person with a 'soul'. A person isnt necessarily a Nazi genocidal killer, or a homicidal manic, or a mass murderer if they don't accept that..

This ranks as probably one of the most stupid statements on this thread. So, per your belief, Nazis are not necessarily genocidal killers because they did not believe Jews to be fully human. The KKK should continue decorating trees with black people because they do not belive black people to be fully human. The idea of what constitues a human has been behing nearly every mass killing. Abortion is no different.

Punch, you must have been tired when you read this post. You forgot to repost the quote with bold: "A person isnt necessarily a Nazi genocidal killer, or a homicidal manic, or a mass murderer if they don't accept that.."To be honest with you, I cannot believe that ROCOR tolerates this. He would be out on his sorry hide if he were in our jurisdiction. As for Orthoabnorm, I wish I could say that I don't know why the OCA has not hit the button on the ejection seat, but I do.

Let's get to the only question I've seriously posed:

Why don't you behave as though an act which you claim to believe is murder, abortion, which is clearly within your ability to stop, well at least one or two, in the same manner as you would any murder which you could stop.

Um, yea, so I have and I do. "Why don't you..." implies that you know me and what I have done. But instead you ignorantly and falsely presume.

The implication and presumption goes even further...that he knows everyone who believes abortion is murder, and knows what they have done.

I think we're confusing two things. One thing is the question of whether abortion constitutes murder. The answer is surely yes. There's really no way to argue from within Orthodoxy that abortion is not murder in every instance, except when done to protect the life the mother, in which case it's "justifiable homicide", in the same way it's justifiable to kill someone who is threatening your life. Even then, we don't say the killing is good, only that it's justifiable.

The other question is whether those who disagree with our views on abortion are culpable if they commit it. I think what Marc is saying is that being a murderer requires the murderer having knowledge of the moral gravity of his actions. Therefore, if you don't believe that killing an unborn child is murder, you are not a murderer, even if from the Orthodox point of view the act itself is murder.

I think that line of reasoning is false, since it introduces moral relativism by the backdoor. The objective moral gravity of a sin is surely not dependent on the beliefs of the sinner. Therefore, I think we can say that, objectively speaking, one who voluntarily kills an unborn child is a murderer.

What we can argue over is how morally culpable the murderer is. Ignorance of the moral gravity of an action CAN be an exculpating factor. I say "can", not "must", because the ignorance itself may be voluntary. We have to consider the possibility that the murderer could have chosen to question his beliefs about abortion, in which case he may have revised them and come to the knowledge that it is indeed a form of murder.

These are obviously difficult questions to which probably only God knows the answer. That is presumably one reason we don't apply laws retroactively. If the law were up to us, I don't think our faith permits any other option than to criminalize abortion as for murder. However, we should not apply the law retroactively to those who committed abortion before, since we should presume they acted in ignorance.

Not precisely my position.

Yes, it is a mitigating circumstance if someone intends to commit a murder or really believes that no human life is being taken. However, a life was still taken so even mitigated, there is still a grave sin.

My primary concern is not really that. There is nothing that compels a Christian to come into the public square and boorishly judge people and threaten them with harm ( jail terms etc.). You can ceratianly justify yourself by pointing out that your Chruch considers Abortion to be a murder. But nothing at all compels anyone from playing that card , except maybe their own pride in being extra Militant.

This tactic is counter productive. It is perfectly reasonable that an ordinarily prudent person can draw the conclusion that an early stage abortion is not the taking of a life. If they are ignorant of something, then they are ignorant of the teachings of Christianity. But objectively speaking, there is no way to know for certain that the "soul" enters the body at conception. That is a religious belief. I suggest treading more lightly if your conclusions are drawn from your faith and not from knowable facts that everyone can plainly see is the case.

OKAY ?

I also suggest waking up the political context. No one is sending Women to jail. Not before during or after anything. There is no possibility of Roe v Wade being overturned. None... Zero... not in any of our lifetimes.

Therefore, the best way to reduce abortion is to put the accusatory finger pointing on the shelf and share your religious understanding of the nature of life and when it may begin and get out of the public/policy square which is the exact wrong place to reach people or have this conversation.......IMHO

Ah I think we've identified the problem. You are distinguishing between "knowledge" and "religious belief", as if we don't already know that both soul and body are created at conception. The belief that life begins at conception is not an irrational superstition, but a rational belief grounded not only in the teaching of the Church but also in our own reason.

Our task is to persuade others that it is reasonable to believe that life begins at conception; from there it should be straightforward to demonstrate that abortion is murder and should be treated as such under the law. Some others have already contributed to this with good arguments. But you shouldn't concede to the secularists that our beliefs are irrational. If you really believe that, you've more or less conceded that your entire belief system is irrational.

mmmmmmmmmmm..Not really

The religious beliefs we are discussing are not based on "reason". In other words they cant be deduced from the facts as we find them. There is an invisible hand involved. The religious belief that soul and body are created together is "reasonable" only to the extent that it is internally logical. But it can't really hold up to rigors scrutiny based on observable, measurable facts. It's requires faith in a list of metaphysical pre suppositions not at all in evidence.

I am not advocating discarding those pre suppostions.. Just be careful when you call someone a Murderer when they don't subscribe to the same list.

If it doesn't hold up to rigorous scrutiny, then we have good reason to think our belief is false. Are you saying you DON'T believe that life begins at conception? I'm sure you are not. As I said, be careful about conceding so much to the secularist, pro-abortion crowd. Some concessions can be used to strengthen one's argument, but others only serve to weaken argument, and I'm sure you are just as keen as the rest of us to offer the strongest argument possible against abortion.

I think there's some confusion about what the "soul" is. Most people who still believe in a soul seem to have settled on defining it as mere consciousness, something which we can only observed in later stages of fetal development at the earliest. But the correct understanding of soul is that it is life itself, the animating principle, and it is quite obvious that even a very young embryo is alive. An aspect of the HUMAN soul, of course, is consciousness, free will, reason and so forth, but these take time to develop. But we can clearly see that the newly conceived embryo is human, and that it is alive, ERGO it must have a soul.

You say a zygote is a full blown person with a 'soul'. A person isnt necessarily a Nazi genocidal killer, or a homicidal manic, or a mass murderer if they don't accept that..

This ranks as probably one of the most stupid statements on this thread. So, per your belief, Nazis are not necessarily genocidal killers because they did not believe Jews to be fully human. The KKK should continue decorating trees with black people because they do not belive black people to be fully human. The idea of what constitues a human has been behing nearly every mass killing. Abortion is no different.

Punch, you must have been tired when you read this post. You forgot to repost the quote with bold: "A person isnt necessarily a Nazi genocidal killer, or a homicidal manic, or a mass murderer if they don't accept that.."To be honest with you, I cannot believe that ROCOR tolerates this. He would be out on his sorry hide if he were in our jurisdiction. As for Orthoabnorm, I wish I could say that I don't know why the OCA has not hit the button on the ejection seat, but I do.

Let's get to the only question I've seriously posed:

Why don't you behave as though an act which you claim to believe is murder, abortion, which is clearly within your ability to stop, well at least one or two, in the same manner as you would any murder which you could stop.

Um, yea, so I have and I do. "Why don't you..." implies that you know me and what I have done. But instead you ignorantly and falsely presume.

The implication and presumption goes even further...that he knows everyone who believes abortion is murder, and knows what they have done.

And how everyone would react to murder.

So you would let someone murder your GF if you could stop them?

Of course not. I'd send them right up to God to explain themselves. If I knew that I'd get a life sentence afterwards because they were some protected class of person I probably still would because I don't think I could live any longer if someone I loved was murdered and I sat by idly.

But then, I have no problem saying that I value her life more than I do most people's.

And I also have no problem admitting that I am more than happy to run away when someone I don't even know is being murdered and the murderer is backed up by the most violent and heavily armed gangsters in the world. Doesn't mean I have to like it and doesn't mean that I'm going to keep quiet about it so long as I have the right to speak up. And believe me, if at some point I had the most violent and heavily armed gangsters behind me, abortion would stop.

I think we're confusing two things. One thing is the question of whether abortion constitutes murder. The answer is surely yes. There's really no way to argue from within Orthodoxy that abortion is not murder in every instance, except when done to protect the life the mother, in which case it's "justifiable homicide", in the same way it's justifiable to kill someone who is threatening your life. Even then, we don't say the killing is good, only that it's justifiable.

The other question is whether those who disagree with our views on abortion are culpable if they commit it. I think what Marc is saying is that being a murderer requires the murderer having knowledge of the moral gravity of his actions. Therefore, if you don't believe that killing an unborn child is murder, you are not a murderer, even if from the Orthodox point of view the act itself is murder.

I think that line of reasoning is false, since it introduces moral relativism by the backdoor. The objective moral gravity of a sin is surely not dependent on the beliefs of the sinner. Therefore, I think we can say that, objectively speaking, one who voluntarily kills an unborn child is a murderer.

What we can argue over is how morally culpable the murderer is. Ignorance of the moral gravity of an action CAN be an exculpating factor. I say "can", not "must", because the ignorance itself may be voluntary. We have to consider the possibility that the murderer could have chosen to question his beliefs about abortion, in which case he may have revised them and come to the knowledge that it is indeed a form of murder.

These are obviously difficult questions to which probably only God knows the answer. That is presumably one reason we don't apply laws retroactively. If the law were up to us, I don't think our faith permits any other option than to criminalize abortion as for murder. However, we should not apply the law retroactively to those who committed abortion before, since we should presume they acted in ignorance.

Not precisely my position.

Yes, it is a mitigating circumstance if someone intends to commit a murder or really believes that no human life is being taken. However, a life was still taken so even mitigated, there is still a grave sin.

My primary concern is not really that. There is nothing that compels a Christian to come into the public square and boorishly judge people and threaten them with harm ( jail terms etc.). You can ceratianly justify yourself by pointing out that your Chruch considers Abortion to be a murder. But nothing at all compels anyone from playing that card , except maybe their own pride in being extra Militant.

This tactic is counter productive. It is perfectly reasonable that an ordinarily prudent person can draw the conclusion that an early stage abortion is not the taking of a life. If they are ignorant of something, then they are ignorant of the teachings of Christianity. But objectively speaking, there is no way to know for certain that the "soul" enters the body at conception. That is a religious belief. I suggest treading more lightly if your conclusions are drawn from your faith and not from knowable facts that everyone can plainly see is the case.

OKAY ?

I also suggest waking up the political context. No one is sending Women to jail. Not before during or after anything. There is no possibility of Roe v Wade being overturned. None... Zero... not in any of our lifetimes.

Therefore, the best way to reduce abortion is to put the accusatory finger pointing on the shelf and share your religious understanding of the nature of life and when it may begin and get out of the public/policy square which is the exact wrong place to reach people or have this conversation.......IMHO

Ah I think we've identified the problem. You are distinguishing between "knowledge" and "religious belief", as if we don't already know that both soul and body are created at conception. The belief that life begins at conception is not an irrational superstition, but a rational belief grounded not only in the teaching of the Church but also in our own reason.

Our task is to persuade others that it is reasonable to believe that life begins at conception; from there it should be straightforward to demonstrate that abortion is murder and should be treated as such under the law. Some others have already contributed to this with good arguments. But you shouldn't concede to the secularists that our beliefs are irrational. If you really believe that, you've more or less conceded that your entire belief system is irrational.

mmmmmmmmmmm..Not really

The religious beliefs we are discussing are not based on "reason". In other words they cant be deduced from the facts as we find them. There is an invisible hand involved. The religious belief that soul and body are created together is "reasonable" only to the extent that it is internally logical. But it can't really hold up to rigors scrutiny based on observable, measurable facts. It's requires faith in a list of metaphysical pre suppositions not at all in evidence.

I am not advocating discarding those pre suppostions.. Just be careful when you call someone a Murderer when they don't subscribe to the same list.

If it doesn't hold up to rigorous scrutiny, then we have good reason to think our belief is false. Are you saying you DON'T believe that life begins at conception? I'm sure you are not. As I said, be careful about conceding so much to the secularist, pro-abortion crowd. Some concessions can be used to strengthen one's argument, but others only serve to weaken argument, and I'm sure you are just as keen as the rest of us to offer the strongest argument possible against abortion.

I think there's some confusion about what the "soul" is. Most people who still believe in a soul seem to have settled on defining it as mere consciousness, something which we can only observed in later stages of fetal development at the earliest. But the correct understanding of soul is that it is life itself, the animating principle, and it is quite obvious that even a very young embryo is alive. An aspect of the HUMAN soul, of course, is consciousness, free will, reason and so forth, but these take time to develop. But we can clearly see that the newly conceived embryo is human, and that it is alive, ERGO it must have a soul.

Let me put it a different way then. The assumption that both soul and body are created by the Supreme Being and that life is fully formed at conception is not measurable nor is it observable and in fact observation of a zygote may tend convince someone that it is not yet fully human.

You must add your own metaphysical understanding of the source and nature of life to make it all fly.. Have compassion for people who don't share those assumptions.

« Last Edit: April 03, 2013, 05:07:40 PM by Marc1152 »

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

You say a zygote is a full blown person with a 'soul'. A person isnt necessarily a Nazi genocidal killer, or a homicidal manic, or a mass murderer if they don't accept that..

This ranks as probably one of the most stupid statements on this thread. So, per your belief, Nazis are not necessarily genocidal killers because they did not believe Jews to be fully human. The KKK should continue decorating trees with black people because they do not belive black people to be fully human. The idea of what constitues a human has been behing nearly every mass killing. Abortion is no different.

Punch, you must have been tired when you read this post. You forgot to repost the quote with bold: "A person isnt necessarily a Nazi genocidal killer, or a homicidal manic, or a mass murderer if they don't accept that.."To be honest with you, I cannot believe that ROCOR tolerates this. He would be out on his sorry hide if he were in our jurisdiction. As for Orthoabnorm, I wish I could say that I don't know why the OCA has not hit the button on the ejection seat, but I do.

Let's get to the only question I've seriously posed:

Why don't you behave as though an act which you claim to believe is murder, abortion, which is clearly within your ability to stop, well at least one or two, in the same manner as you would any murder which you could stop.

Um, yea, so I have and I do. "Why don't you..." implies that you know me and what I have done. But instead you ignorantly and falsely presume.

The implication and presumption goes even further...that he knows everyone who believes abortion is murder, and knows what they have done.

And how everyone would react to murder.

So you would let someone murder your GF if you could stop them?

Of course not. I'd send them right up to God to explain themselves. If I knew that I'd get a life sentence afterwards because they were some protected class of person I probably still would because I don't think I could live any longer if someone I loved was murdered and I sat by idly.

But then, I have no problem saying that I value her life more than I do most people's.

And I also have no problem admitting that I am more than happy to run away when someone I don't even know is being murdered and the murderer is backed up by the most violent and heavily armed gangsters in the world. Doesn't mean I have to like it and doesn't mean that I'm going to keep quiet about it so long as I have the right to speak up. And believe me, if at some point I had the most violent and heavily armed gangsters behind me, abortion would stop.

if at some point I had the most violent and heavily armed gangsters behind me, abortion would stop.

Game..Set...Match

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

I think we're confusing two things. One thing is the question of whether abortion constitutes murder. The answer is surely yes. There's really no way to argue from within Orthodoxy that abortion is not murder in every instance, except when done to protect the life the mother, in which case it's "justifiable homicide", in the same way it's justifiable to kill someone who is threatening your life. Even then, we don't say the killing is good, only that it's justifiable.

The other question is whether those who disagree with our views on abortion are culpable if they commit it. I think what Marc is saying is that being a murderer requires the murderer having knowledge of the moral gravity of his actions. Therefore, if you don't believe that killing an unborn child is murder, you are not a murderer, even if from the Orthodox point of view the act itself is murder.

I think that line of reasoning is false, since it introduces moral relativism by the backdoor. The objective moral gravity of a sin is surely not dependent on the beliefs of the sinner. Therefore, I think we can say that, objectively speaking, one who voluntarily kills an unborn child is a murderer.

What we can argue over is how morally culpable the murderer is. Ignorance of the moral gravity of an action CAN be an exculpating factor. I say "can", not "must", because the ignorance itself may be voluntary. We have to consider the possibility that the murderer could have chosen to question his beliefs about abortion, in which case he may have revised them and come to the knowledge that it is indeed a form of murder.

These are obviously difficult questions to which probably only God knows the answer. That is presumably one reason we don't apply laws retroactively. If the law were up to us, I don't think our faith permits any other option than to criminalize abortion as for murder. However, we should not apply the law retroactively to those who committed abortion before, since we should presume they acted in ignorance.

Not precisely my position.

Yes, it is a mitigating circumstance if someone intends to commit a murder or really believes that no human life is being taken. However, a life was still taken so even mitigated, there is still a grave sin.

My primary concern is not really that. There is nothing that compels a Christian to come into the public square and boorishly judge people and threaten them with harm ( jail terms etc.). You can ceratianly justify yourself by pointing out that your Chruch considers Abortion to be a murder. But nothing at all compels anyone from playing that card , except maybe their own pride in being extra Militant.

This tactic is counter productive. It is perfectly reasonable that an ordinarily prudent person can draw the conclusion that an early stage abortion is not the taking of a life. If they are ignorant of something, then they are ignorant of the teachings of Christianity. But objectively speaking, there is no way to know for certain that the "soul" enters the body at conception. That is a religious belief. I suggest treading more lightly if your conclusions are drawn from your faith and not from knowable facts that everyone can plainly see is the case.

OKAY ?

I also suggest waking up the political context. No one is sending Women to jail. Not before during or after anything. There is no possibility of Roe v Wade being overturned. None... Zero... not in any of our lifetimes.

Therefore, the best way to reduce abortion is to put the accusatory finger pointing on the shelf and share your religious understanding of the nature of life and when it may begin and get out of the public/policy square which is the exact wrong place to reach people or have this conversation.......IMHO

Ah I think we've identified the problem. You are distinguishing between "knowledge" and "religious belief", as if we don't already know that both soul and body are created at conception. The belief that life begins at conception is not an irrational superstition, but a rational belief grounded not only in the teaching of the Church but also in our own reason.

Our task is to persuade others that it is reasonable to believe that life begins at conception; from there it should be straightforward to demonstrate that abortion is murder and should be treated as such under the law. Some others have already contributed to this with good arguments. But you shouldn't concede to the secularists that our beliefs are irrational. If you really believe that, you've more or less conceded that your entire belief system is irrational.

mmmmmmmmmmm..Not really

The religious beliefs we are discussing are not based on "reason". In other words they cant be deduced from the facts as we find them. There is an invisible hand involved. The religious belief that soul and body are created together is "reasonable" only to the extent that it is internally logical. But it can't really hold up to rigors scrutiny based on observable, measurable facts. It's requires faith in a list of metaphysical pre suppositions not at all in evidence.

I am not advocating discarding those pre suppostions.. Just be careful when you call someone a Murderer when they don't subscribe to the same list.

If it doesn't hold up to rigorous scrutiny, then we have good reason to think our belief is false. Are you saying you DON'T believe that life begins at conception? I'm sure you are not. As I said, be careful about conceding so much to the secularist, pro-abortion crowd. Some concessions can be used to strengthen one's argument, but others only serve to weaken argument, and I'm sure you are just as keen as the rest of us to offer the strongest argument possible against abortion.

I think there's some confusion about what the "soul" is. Most people who still believe in a soul seem to have settled on defining it as mere consciousness, something which we can only observed in later stages of fetal development at the earliest. But the correct understanding of soul is that it is life itself, the animating principle, and it is quite obvious that even a very young embryo is alive. An aspect of the HUMAN soul, of course, is consciousness, free will, reason and so forth, but these take time to develop. But we can clearly see that the newly conceived embryo is human, and that it is alive, ERGO it must have a soul.

Let me put it a different way then. The assumption that both soul and body are created by the Supreme Being and that life is fully formed at conception is not measurable nor is it observable and in fact observation of a zygote may tend convince someone that it is not yet fully human.

You must add your own metaphysical understanding of the source and nature of life to make it all fly.. Have compassion for people who don't share those assumptions.

Who said I didn't have compassion? Of course we should have compassion for murderers. But that doesn't mean they aren't murderers.

I'm a bit confused about who your audience is at the moment. Are you trying to persuade US that abortion isn't murder? Because that's what it seems like when you argue that we shouldn't call abortionists murderers. Or are you trying to argue that, for the sake of our campaign against abortion, we shouldn't start by calling abortionists murderers? The latter is a debatable tactic, but at least we'd be clear where you stand.

So yes, J. Michael, vamrat, Father Hill, I am assuming you would stop possibly short of killing another to stop a murder.

Big leap.

Sorry if I assumed you would go so far.

Who is Father Hill? Haralambos is the only "H" in my name. I as a priest cannot kill another, but if someone comes after anyone in my presence, family included, they may lose a limb or two. I as a priest also have prevented every abortion of every parishioner or family member or person I know who has come to me with this intention without killing them. Most mothers do not have a psychopathic intent to kill like a serial killer or conscienceless thief.

In what context? If you brow beat someone who did not ask for your opinion, that is meddling.

If you offer your opinion when asked for or if it concerns your own personal business, then it isnt.

If you attempt to use the power of the State to impose a Moral dictum based solely on religious tenets ("a zygote is a fully formed person with a soul") not accepted by large numbers of the population...That would be meddling

First part, I didn't meddle. Glad we agree on that.

Second part, what you are saying should happen, by your definition, is meddling.

Thanks for your assessment. I thought what you said was obnoxious and meddlesome. Are you the town busybody?

You have no business repeating someone else's private drama just to make a cheap point.

You really should stop contradicting yourself.

But you wouldnt actually be able to point out a contradiction I'm betting

It was a silly, obnoxious , not to mention vague, little story to plop down in the middle of the conversation. Rubbed me the wrong way. There is nothing more to it than that.

The funniest contradiction here is your doing the very thing you claim is wrong, but of course you wouldn't recognize that because you agree with yourself. You make one claim, when shown it is not true, you continue to make that claim. All you have accomplished here is revealing you allow your emotions to control your thoughts and how you interact with opposing opinion.

Please list the claims that you think have been shown to be untrue.. I must have missed them